How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#161

Post by jackvalentine » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:00 AM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #127

c22 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume kids are problems to begin with? I have met hundreds of kids during my adult life and the highest any of them has risen to for me is minor annoyance. I've had more trouble from my cars.

I'm not the one that used "problem" to describe kids, btw. FWIW I quite like kids. But saying strangers kids are my responsibility because of "society" is not true at all.

Kids are a part of society, and society has a stake in what kind of adult they become.

In the same way drug addicts are society's problem, or unemployed people are society's problem, or sociopathic second generation rich never-worked-a-day drunk drivers are society's problem.

This isn't to say that you'll be conscripted in to a psudo-parent role against your will, but they are your responsibility as a member of society in a very abstract way.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#162

Post by darioush » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:02 AM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #48

FussyZeus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots do better work without breaks, rest, coffee and in many cases without even occupying physical space. We're on the edge of automating driving, one of the most complex and demanding tasks humans do on a regular basis. The benefits for the companies are infinite: a completely docile workforce of robots that don't need anything but a steady flow of power. There is no reason to suspect any jobs are safe any more. I…

Automated driving on an industrial scale is still decades into the future. And even when it comes, arguing that it will be a huge, earth-shaking change seems far fetched. Like I said, it's the general trend (we could talk about automations on the same scale as your human driver example that have already happened), but the alarmism is not justified.

Decades is a long time. The internet is only 2.5 decades old and now you can click and have anything you want delivered to your doorstep. Your phone can tell you how to drive to avoid traffic. Your car already runs more software in it over a few minutes than the largest research universities could run in weeks. Image recognition has gone from "scanning digits on checks" to "outperforming humans on classifying images" (at least on some tasks) just in the past decade.

Which aspect of it do you think needs decades?

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#163

Post by fjdlwlv » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:03 AM UTC

Jimmy wrote: post #69

ucontrol wrote: post #59

A dull article ridden with blatantly false claims and oversimplification of an otherwise complicated topic. >Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing professionals in their respective fields. Really now? >Developing a skill set early on leads to competence in what is learned but stumps creativity and chances of inn…

>>Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing professionals in their respective fields. >Really now? Um, yes? Are you challenging the article's claim here? Depending on how strictly we're defining "game changing", only a small handful of people, even those who were "gifted" as children, ever accomplish anything really…

Are you joking? Jeff Dean fails by your metric of "game changing", and so do almost everyone at Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, except for the 6 people at the top of the hierarchy. You think Larry and Sergey ar slept responsible for Google's game changing inventions?

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#164

Post by fjdlwlv » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:09 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #116

j9461701 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only true up to a point. Past ~125 IQ, you start running into serious social problems that mean such individuals are much less likely to obtain leadership positions, join intellectually challenging professions, or obtain advanced degrees. https://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropria... http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2017-14279-001/

This get's into questions of what is an is not a good proxy for actual intelligence. IQ tests are more likely to become arbitrary rankings once you looking at ever smaller population sizes and thus relative poor proxy's for g. Still, Roughly one third to one half of the billionaires (45.0%), Fortune 500 CEOs (38.6%), Senators (41.0%), and federal judges (40.9%) attended a school requiring standardized test scores tha…

Obviously if you define intelligence as "successful" than intelligence correlates with success. That's a circular void claim.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#165

Post by fjdlwlv » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:10 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #101

Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2) This falls into the just world fallacy. Intelligence does not seem to come with real drawbacks. Highly intelligent people often have upper end reflexes, are unusual attractive, highly creative, social, and or content. They are more often taller and live longer as well. The trappings of intelligence are different, but very high raw intelligence is seen across most walks of life including actors, athletes, and sales…

>are unusual attractive Source? I've never heard of intelligence being correlated with visual attractiveness.

Retric has made many posts conflating above-average intelligence with the extremely high intelligence that the article talks about.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#166

Post by fjdlwlv » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:15 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #106

paganel wrote: post #19

> When Dr. Bloom’s team interviewed tennis players who were ranked in the top 10 in the world, they were not, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, doing push-ups since they were a fetus. And then you see a clip of 5-year old Messi ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWZ0fD64Uk ) demolishing the other 5-year old kids who happened to share the same football field as him and realize that "letting your kid be creative" and all t…

It's even more laughable for any sort of endurance sports, where the genetic components are very well known. The best marathon runner is probably sitting on a couch eating a bag of cheetos.

The best marathon runners are from an African community of genetically strong marathoners , who run a lot all their lives. Nature + nurture beats either alone

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#167

Post by mathattack » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:16 AM UTC

Consider the nation’s most prestigious award for scientifically gifted high school students, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, called the Super Bowl of science by one American president. From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000 precocious teenagers as finalists. But just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes.

8 out of 2000 is a lot higher than most any other sample group.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#168

Post by 77pt77 » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:16 AM UTC

jeffwass wrote: post #56

luckyt wrote: post #2

> just eight have won Nobel Prizes You pick 2000 teenagers, and 8 go on to win a Nobel Prize, and you're still not satisfied? High expectations much...

Author also contradicts himself. First the author laments only 8 novel prizes of the batch. Then in the next sentence goes on to praise Lisa Randall for revolutionising physics, and notes that for every Lisa Randall there are dozens that fall short of their potential. Ironic because Lisa Randall didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Yet.....

> Ironic because Lisa Randall didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Yet.....

And given her current work and experimental results there is no reasonable prospect she ever will, unlike people that you know that would win sooner or later (unless they died)

> For every Lisa Randall who revolutionizes theoretical physics

She did not revolutionize Physics. Not even close. She barely made a dent.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#169

Post by LostWanderer » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:16 AM UTC

keldaris wrote: post #136

smackingly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a no-name physician at a community hospital, but the "best doctors" in my eyes are the ones with the best outcomes, lowest utilization, highest efficiency and highest patient satisfaction. These measures don't correlate well with the physician's credentials. I learned this in residency, which I did just down the street from a "top" university hospital. We out-performed that place on every…

The problem for me as a reasonably educated patient (physics PhD, done some work in biological physics, amateur knowledge of medical literature which I enjoy reading) is that the "top" academically performing doctors leave a public track record of their expertise in the form of academic publications I can go through and evaluate. I fully realize that this doesn't necessarily (or even often) correlate with practical s…

This may be a shot in the dark but try looking for doctors who interact and are cheerful(to their patients). The referral thing between the patients is very strong so more patients will come and will feel good which works as a catalyst(Both the parties will have a good amount of dopamine flowing). And eventually the variety and number of patients will increase and so the doctor will have more practice and become better!

In the far off rural areas where connectivity is almost nil,The doctors rarely go to the hospitals and the doctor's assistant does more work,becoming at par with the doctors in a few years.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#170

Post by dang » Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 4:26 AM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #76

Why do you feel entitled to foist your own or other peoples problems onto strangers?

Would you please not post uncivilly to HN? Personal abrasiveness, which this comment veers into, is something to be avoided.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14128052 and marked it off-topic.