Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 343 posts

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#191

Post by hnfong »

vlovich123 wrote: post #171
fifilura wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pressure our kids into grit, but genius comes from the inside. Be grateful when it happens, but be happy if it does not.

Laszlo Polgar would disagree [1]. He contends that raising a genius is something you can actually target intentionally (whether or not you should). His proof being 3 daughters who became GMs and one that was a generational talent. As far as audibles go, that’s quite a flex. Yes, the daughters are not all equally talented and chess isn’t quite the same as math, but we’re talking about gradiation within an achievement…

Even if you disregard the anecdote (n=1) thing, it's quite obvious that genius has a genetic component to it, and the father being a good chess player tilts the odds in his favor quite a bit.

Also, the idea that chess is a good proxy for genius is a bit out of date.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#192

Post by t-3 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #184
zelphirkalt wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think our society is even remotely meritocratic regarding intelligence. Maybe it is meritocratic regarding psychopathy. We merely have a few pockets, where the very brightest are rewarded. However going from average intelligence up to those pockets, there is a ton of people, who are clearly more intelligent than most others. Much more intelligent than the typical lie-your-way-through-life people, who haven't…

Hierarchies are promoted because they coordinate the work of large numbers of people and make them vastly more effective at scale. That's quite meritocratic.

Hierarchies are promoted because they concentrate wealth and power among a few people, who distribute it to a few people they more-or-less trust. It's just feudalism with less violent feuding.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#193

Post by drited »

Cultivating that passion is an art. A modern tool which I've found great to let my kids grow their math ability is the game Prodigy Math. Worth checking out - it's fun (do math to gain spellcasting ability in the game) and gently pushes the envelope of what they can do. It emails parents with details on what math problems the child didn't get right and with sample exercises to address those areas. I have no connection to them other than being a customer.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#194

Post by rhubarbtree »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #42
quietthrow wrote: post #21

Genuine curiosity: if you are gifted with a certain “wiring” (genes, brain chemistry etc) why is that considered an accomplishment? Also - We, as a society, tend to celebrate people with “natural didn’t really need to work for” type gifts quite inconsistently - eg A supermodel who is gifted with the gift of looks, beauty etc is also in the same category of “natural” talent but sure doesn’t get the same celebration as…

Why for you is innate grit any more commendable than innate intelligence?

Can’t speak for others but I think I learnt grit. Didn’t really show it very young but by 16 I was just able to grind through anything.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#195

Post by jacquesm »

matsemann wrote: post #97
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't find the reference but from an interview with his parents there apparently there wasn't much "nurturing" other than simply making available the necessary materials which he gobbled up. Its not like they put a made him practice for an hour a day. A boy in my high school class made IMO and got a gold medal (and later on won the Putnam one year). They interviewed his parents and it was a similar story.

> and later on won the Putnam one year Just the once, though, huh? [0] [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35015#35079

Hehe, that one will never die. It's the comment that more or less defines HN.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#196

Post by PacificSpecific »

drited wrote: post #193

Cultivating that passion is an art. A modern tool which I've found great to let my kids grow their math ability is the game Prodigy Math. Worth checking out - it's fun (do math to gain spellcasting ability in the game) and gently pushes the envelope of what they can do. It emails parents with details on what math problems the child didn't get right and with sample exercises to address those areas. I have no connectio…

The music in that game is sublime

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#198

Post by qmr »

drited wrote: post #193

Cultivating that passion is an art. A modern tool which I've found great to let my kids grow their math ability is the game Prodigy Math. Worth checking out - it's fun (do math to gain spellcasting ability in the game) and gently pushes the envelope of what they can do. It emails parents with details on what math problems the child didn't get right and with sample exercises to address those areas. I have no connectio…

Hey thanks for this recommendation I'm going to check it out.

Have you tried Dragon Box? I've had my son doing that for awhile. Parent reporting is lacking.

Also briefly did Khan Academy Kids but he's so far ahead that seems pretty useless now.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#199

Post by jacquesm »

quietthrow wrote: post #21

Genuine curiosity: if you are gifted with a certain “wiring” (genes, brain chemistry etc) why is that considered an accomplishment? Also - We, as a society, tend to celebrate people with “natural didn’t really need to work for” type gifts quite inconsistently - eg A supermodel who is gifted with the gift of looks, beauty etc is also in the same category of “natural” talent but sure doesn’t get the same celebration as…

Roughly for the same reason that we put Olympians on a pedestal. Sure, there is a lot of grit involved. But it starts off with good genes and while you won't find anybody that didn't put in the work you also won't find people with bad genes because they will never make it to the entry point, and even if somehow magically they did they'd never stand a chance.

Case in point, that dance...

Society rewards 'good genes'. Which is interesting because it is effectively the club of good genes rewarding themselves by co-opting the ones without, either by amassing actual gold or by amassing gold medals. And we all let them because we recognize that they really do have good genes and they put in the hard work.

The problems arrive when the ones that are good at amassing actual gold and that are intelligent do not have a similar endowment in the ethics department. And weirdly enough we don't have a backstop for that unless they act in a limited number of ways that we consider 'criminal', usually reserved for the ones with 'bad genes'. So as long as they stay away from those we just look at the grit and the money and go 'that's ok then'.

And if you have amassed enough shiny rocks even those criminal laws seems to no longer matter and you can do whatever the hell you want and expect to get away with it.

Re: Terence Tao, at 8 years old (1984) [pdf]

#200

Post by kakacik »

vlovich123 wrote: post #171
fifilura wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pressure our kids into grit, but genius comes from the inside. Be grateful when it happens, but be happy if it does not.

Laszlo Polgar would disagree [1]. He contends that raising a genius is something you can actually target intentionally (whether or not you should). His proof being 3 daughters who became GMs and one that was a generational talent. As far as audibles go, that’s quite a flex. Yes, the daughters are not all equally talented and chess isn’t quite the same as math, but we’re talking about gradiation within an achievement…

That's just utilizing potential already present there and nurturing it far, the father was an established chess player and university professor and their mother is probably in similar range. Sure, it works, why would anybody argue against or find this shocking or relevatory?

Try the same with babies who are already visibly not the brightest (say in kindergarden group), their parents are also average or worse regarding intelligence. There is a ceiling, it may be high or not but its there. If you haven't experienced it in your life you are one of lucky few (and certainly didn't push yourself hard enough to sense it).

Same goes with memory - you can train it far, use various techniques. Then comes somebody natural (yet still far from what we would call genius) who didn't bother with any of that and immediately surpasses whatever was achieved. We are not created equal and all have hard boundaries, be it health, cognition, body regeneration and so on.

Post reply on HN