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

251–260 of 343 posts

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

#251

Post by gwern »

lich_king wrote: post #231

Since the discussion here focuses mostly on child prodigies in general, I'd note that there are many studies showing that the usual outcomes for gifted kids are not all that great. I think the issue is that it's just harder to fit in. I remember being way ahead in some classes in middle school, and I actually ending up drawing the ire of some teachers when I had answers to every question (let alone corrected them). I…

> I'd note that there are many studies showing that the usual outcomes for gifted kids are not all that great.

No, there's not, and they do do great. And this goes back to Terman: there's a handful of highly selected examples (eg the Australian kids recruited from child psychologist referrals, the self-selected self-diagnosed Mensa adult survey), furious anecdotes, and then every systematic prospective sample like Terman or population registers or SMPY shows the opposite.

And while Tao is, of course, exceptional, the results for accelerated gifted kids are generally great. And Tao was part of SMPY (note the URL path, supporting documentation for https://gwern.net/smpy ) and helped demonstrate this in practice.

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

#252

Post by tarentel »

meroes wrote: post #244
lich_king wrote: post #231

Since the discussion here focuses mostly on child prodigies in general, I'd note that there are many studies showing that the usual outcomes for gifted kids are not all that great. I think the issue is that it's just harder to fit in. I remember being way ahead in some classes in middle school, and I actually ending up drawing the ire of some teachers when I had answers to every question (let alone corrected them). I…

I think a big one you didn’t touch on is being told you do well in school because you are smart, not because you put in the effort. It’s a lie many start believing, that they don’t put in effort.

Not sure that's true. I am by no means gifted in the sense of Terence Tao, or even people much more gifted than me but far less gifted than him, but I did well in school up to a certain point in college. I never really learned how to study until I got fairly far in my education process. I put very little effort into school up until that point. That's when I actually had to put effort in and it was quite a wake up call.

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

#253

Post by NitpickLawyer »

jonahx wrote: post #24
jama211 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it works like that, I think his biggest superpower was intrinsic motivation. Any child who read maths textbooks with enthusiasm for 3-4 hours a day for years could in theory at least get close to doing what he did, but what kid had that level of motivation?

> Any child who read maths textbooks with enthusiasm for 3-4 hours a day for years could in theory at least get close to doing what he did No, they couldn't. And neither could most adults, for that matter. Innate ability is real.

> No, they couldn't.

Isn't that a bit too certain for something that's not settled at all? How else would you explain the Polgar sisters? I'm sure there are other examples, but this is the most famous one.

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

#254

Post by TZubiri »

lich_king wrote: post #231

Since the discussion here focuses mostly on child prodigies in general, I'd note that there are many studies showing that the usual outcomes for gifted kids are not all that great. I think the issue is that it's just harder to fit in. I remember being way ahead in some classes in middle school, and I actually ending up drawing the ire of some teachers when I had answers to every question (let alone corrected them). I…

A trick I learned is to respond "Oh, ok", at a certain point.

Debating something is, as my grandmother said "the ultimate concession", you only ever really debate something if you feel that there is a chance you are wrong. If there is an impasse, and you are confident in your response, there is usually no reason to continue, especially when there's a teacher-student asymmetry, they take it personal, and you gain nothing but make an enemy out of your teacher and spend your "question" points.

There's only so many times you can interrupt a professor, and spending your question points on correcting them isn't very useful to a student. And that the student believe that on one ocassion they know more than the professor, does not mean that there is nothing to learn from the professor.

Both of these mistakes (overextending a challenge and conflating a specific dominance over a general dominance) I think often come together under a personality trait that is generally identified as "arrogance". I do think there's a middle ground between believing one is superior and dropping all contentions of giftedness, but it's a thin line, and I think it's especially notable when the difference in talents (between the student and teacher, or between the gifted child and the average) is very marginal anyway, if it's undisputable then most tensions dissipate with the clarity.

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

#255

Post by hirvi74 »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #236
jodrellblank wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of "lifetime of hard work and dedication" are you misreading as "so easy"?

There is zero, absolutely zero chance of the 50th percentile IQ becoming a world class mathematician. People who say this have no idea exactly how smart these guys are.

> absolutely zero chance of the 50th percentile IQ becoming a world class mathematician.

Good, we don't need billions of them anyway.

I wish modern society would quit focusing on individual intelligence over collective intelligence. We can take something like the microprocessor, for example. The smart group that designed the microprocessor was not the same group that designed the software nor the group the built the parts nor the group the assembled the device. However, every group is equally important.

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

#256

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hirvi74 wrote: post #250
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> people generally don't like to listen to stories that suggest that nurture and hard work aren't as important as they presume Having grown up in australia but living in the us, this attitude is very american. It's quite funny to see when you don't grow up thinking it. I married into a very athletic family and have a child who is a precocious athlete. Many parents ask us what training regime or practice sessions we…

So, what do you tell children that do well/poorly?

If you work at it you can get better. It's true in both cases. Getting better and getting as good as the very best are two very different things. One is about you. The other is mostly about others.

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

#257

Post by kenjackson »

simsla wrote: post #131
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Terence Tao wasn't school-shaped, would he have been as successful? He learned to read and write by himself. I'm pretty sure he would've been fine regardless of shape.

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

That's a specific school problem. I think being school-shaped is not about being bored, but more about being willing to do tasks on a schedule and can learn a lot of material through a lecture style.

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

#258

Post by hirvi74 »

kakacik wrote: post #200
vlovich123 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regardin…

> the father was an established chess player

Where did you find this information? I haven't been able to find any source that states he was above an amateur level.

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

#259

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hirvi74 wrote: post #255
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero, absolutely zero chance of the 50th percentile IQ becoming a world class mathematician. People who say this have no idea exactly how smart these guys are.

> absolutely zero chance of the 50th percentile IQ becoming a world class mathematician. Good, we don't need billions of them anyway. I wish modern society would quit focusing on individual intelligence over collective intelligence. We can take something like the microprocessor, for example. The smart group that designed the microprocessor was not the same group that designed the software nor the group the built the…

yes, 100%. But nature seems to be wired for competition, so we have the leftover genetic material even if it is to our detriment at this point.

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

#260

Post by PaulHoule »

hgomersall wrote: post #92
Darkstryder wrote: post #35

As a father of an 8 years old, this is very moving. While Terence is -without a doubt- born with prodigious abilities, I think credit should also be given to his parents Billy and Grace who seem to have managed to simultaneously nurture these special abilities while still letting Terence have a happy (?) childhood. This is not easy to do.

In my house we discuss a macro feature of children as being "school-shaped". If Terence Tao wasn't school-shaped, would he have been as successful? The counter-point to that is to ponder how many children fail to achieve a similar level of success because they don't fit into the school system so are left by the wayside.

There is the ideal of school and then there is school.

I was very 'school-shaped' if by school you mean I could sit quietly and read books and solve problems. More school-shaped than the other kids.

If by school you mean that bullies don't find you interesting, that nobody threatens to kill you, then I was not 'school-shaped' at all.

I was really excited to go to school on day one, within a year it tuned very bad and I wish, retrospectively, I'd had the courage to stay home.

Post reply on HN