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

201–210 of 343 posts

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

#201

Post by goolz »

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…

This brings back great memories of a game I played as a kid called 24. Not so much modern, just cards with four numbers that you would add, subtract, multiply and divide to get the center number. Then you would slap the card and explain. It did something to my brain as even the thought of those cards makes me smile.

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

#202

Post by lowdude »

meffmadd wrote: post #183

I really wonder what motivates a seven year old to persistently work on that „one thing“ and not get distracted/bored. I guess he knew he was special?

I believe it comes down to intrinsic interest, that he would not consider this something boring he needs to work through, but rather something fun and intriguing to spend his time on.

Disregarding the unusual age in this case, I believe that most people could be significantly better at mathematics than they are, if only they found it interesting enough.

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

#203

Post by agrounds »

mlrtime wrote: post #162
simsla wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's probably the opposite of being school-shaped. School is hellishly boring if you're ahead of the curve.

The pdf linked seems to disagree with your assessment, at least for Tao.

Agreed. But generally it very much depends on the school and the effort of those in and around it. Terrence was very fortunate to have parents who supported him and likely lobbied for his unconventional high school/primary school split education, and equally fortunate that his schools were able and willing to accommodate him.

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

#204

Post by jatari »

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…

Real answer, none of us can do anything more than what you are given by your parents. You get the brain you get and that's it. You can either work hard and improve and become a genius or you become a drug addict and die in a gutter. Determinism and the laws of physics rules us all.

We might as well chose to praise those of us who were gifted with abilities that we aspire to.

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

#205

Post by illuminator83 »

aurareturn wrote: post #17

I know it must be obvious but this proves to me that biological intelligence hasn't nearly reached its peak. If we select for pure intelligence, biological brains can get much smarter. Imagine if we had 5 million geniuses as smart or smarter than Tao doing quantum physics. But life doesn't select for pure intelligence, it selects for survival. In the Dune books, they banned computers so they bred super mentally capab…

Intelligent people tend to reproduce a lot less than other people. You wanna be average (or slightly above) for the best chance at successful procreation. And hyper-intelligent people are especially bad at procreation.

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

#206

Post by zozbot234 »

t-3 wrote: post #192
zozbot234 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a pointless observation though, the interesting point is that hierarchies manage to concentrate benefits because working as part of a functioning hierarchy makes even the individuals involved a lot more effective, to the point where they're better off even with much of the benefit flowing towards the top.

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

#207

Post by albertzeyer »

keiferski wrote: post #108

I just read this yesterday in Conversations with Walter Murch, a well-known film editor. Not exactly the same, but I do get the sense that Tao still feels the same way about math: As I've gone through life, I've found that your chances for happiness are increased if you wind up doing something that is a reflection of what you loved most when you were somewhere between nine and eleven years old. Interviewer: Yes—somet…

I wonder a bit about that. What activities or possibilities are you exposed at during that age.

I know many computer science colleagues who were not exposed to programming during that age and only later came to it.

I feel kind of lucky that somewhat randomly I stumbled into computer programming (because XtreeGold could show the content of files, and I was learning to understand BAT-files by looking into them) during that age, and that's what I do now.

There are probably a lot of things you were not exposed during that age, that could have been the perfect match.

There are also lots of kids who just play games, or video games, do sports, watch films or so during that age, without really being exposed to any "potential useful" activities. Some parents would maybe even say that this is how it should be.

As a parent, I guess a good advice would be to try to expose your child to as much things as possible, without forcing it to do anything of course.

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

#208

Post by fifilura »

kakacik wrote: post #187
fifilura wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what about the parents who struggle every day with normally gifted children? They deserve even more credit. This seems like an easy child :)

One needs to be a (long term present) parent to understand these subtleties. You also hear just the success stories which are often extremely marginal, when such approach wouldn't fit development curve of some other potential genius we would not be hearing their less successful story, would we. Not diminishing the overall message, in 80s even in western democracies deeper info was not so readily available so its not…

It is unclear to me what you are trying to say.

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

#209

Post by t-3 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #206
t-3 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a pointless observation though, the interesting point is that hierarchies manage to concentrate benefits because working as part of a functioning hierarchy makes even the individuals involved a lot more effective, to the point where they're better off even with much of the benefit flowing towards the top.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I've never heard of any study that showed that cooperatives are less productive than hierarchies.

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

#210

Post by zozbot234 »

t-3 wrote: post #209
zozbot234 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pointless observation though, the interesting point is that hierarchies manage to concentrate benefits because working as part of a functioning hierarchy makes even the individuals involved a lot more effective, to the point where they're better off even with much of the benefit flowing towards the top.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I've never heard of any study that showed that cooperatives are less productive than hierarchies.

Even co-ops have hierarchy-style management, which is often professional management. It's just done on behalf of the collective membership instead of answering to a corporate board. (But the oversight is often weak in any such scenario, so the professionals involved can accrue significant benefits.)
Post reply on HN