101–110 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also inspire people trapped in dead-end science careers to take acting lessons.
That could mean the end of silly Hollywood movie physics. Imagine the possibilities!
I like Natalie. I can't help but wonder, genuinely, if some of her academic success was influenced by her star stature. I've seen evidence that she is indeed quite bright. On the other hand, how many profs are going to give Natalie Portman a B?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.
This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. I…
It's naive to think everyone is born equal that way.
Nice article. Two sentences jumped out at me. First: “There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.” then: If anything, stories like Ms. Portman’s show that great success, like DNA, is constructed of a few basic building blocks: tenacity, focus, and the old Woody Allen line about just sh…
The last time I was familiar with the literature (~10 years ago), intelligence was best defined as having many dimensions. It's a collection of weakly related gifts. Spatial reasoning, for example, is a different kind of intelligence than musical ability. Perhaps someone more up to date on the science can chime in.
In any case, attempts to squash all those dimensions into a single numerical scale (like an IQ) hide a lot of information and can be very misleading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. I…
Why is it so easy to accept that pretty much everything in our bodies is genetic but not intelligence? I don't see why it would be any different. We already know that the brain is not just one big 'computing mass' but instead consists of many thousands of extremely specialized systems interconnected in a genetically-determined way shaped over thousands of years of evolution. If some of these systems are missing or no…
Nice article. Two sentences jumped out at me. First: “There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.” then: If anything, stories like Ms. Portman’s show that great success, like DNA, is constructed of a few basic building blocks: tenacity, focus, and the old Woody Allen line about just sh…
I would also add - sometimes a smart person just doesn't give a damn about impressing others. When I deliberately dis-engage in uninteresting conversations with "smart people" I can see them judging me immediately. Sometimes I just don't want to faux-argue over inconsequential bullshit. The older you get the better you get at letting your ego go in these kinds of meaningless contests.
Agreed. And this is the perspective I have for a lot of the discussion threads here on HN. I love HN. But honestly, much of the so-called discussion here is picking at nits and stamp collecting. Even when you "win" you lose because you've wasted the time and effort that could have been better spent in the real world, or doing something to improve your financial or health situation. Not saying all discussion is bad, but one should pick and choose and get the most bang for your buck.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out another "scientist" (minor) actor not mentioned in this article: - speaks Swedish, English, Spanish, some German, some French, some Japanese, and some Italian - awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - has a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney (1982) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_lundgren
Kind of ironic to be so gifted in so many areas, and yet be famous for something you're not even good at.
Oh, you mean acting.
Nice article. Two sentences jumped out at me. First: “There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.” then: If anything, stories like Ms. Portman’s show that great success, like DNA, is constructed of a few basic building blocks: tenacity, focus, and the old Woody Allen line about just sh…
Intelligence is real but very difficult to quantify. The last time I was familiar with the literature (~10 years ago), intelligence was best defined as having many dimensions. It's a collection of weakly related gifts. Spatial reasoning, for example, is a different kind of intelligence than musical ability. Perhaps someone more up to date on the science can chime in. In any case, attempts to squash all those dimensio…
That was an interesting article. I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred. The last sentence, "You can be a scientist, but if you want your name in lights, you’d better play one on TV." made me a little sad. Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those. I don't know how much pro…
> Eventually, we get what we celebrate; ... Serious question. I wonder why if anti-intellectualism is so widespread in the US, you guys still have some of the best native-born scientists in the world (although there are more and more imported ones). What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture? Anyone with good answers p…
If it's like Australia, it's because when you escape adolescent daycare, you discover at university that there are people as smart as you. Often smarter.
And it's bloody marvellous.