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

271–280 of 343 posts

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

#271

Post by 317070 »

weatherlite wrote: post #45
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…

> Genuine curiosity: if you are gifted with a certain “wiring” (genes, brain chemistry etc) why is that considered an accomplishment? It's complex; first of all society has an interest for exceptional people to be respected and well compensated; if there was absolutely no prestige or compensation in being a math genius it's quite possible Terrence Tao would have become a schoolteacher. So a well functioning capitalis…

> Second, I think it's human nature to like and want hierarchy.

I just want to point out that this is most likely not true, and that this is cultural. The long argument you can find in the book "The Dawn of Everything".

In short, when the West came into contact with other civilizations, one of the most striking features of our culture from their point of view was how hierarchical we are.

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

#272

Post by fuzzfactor »

jodrellblank wrote: post #264
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.

It seems like a bit of a pointless and unanswerable argument about semantics, the only bit is the irritating "ohh if it's SOOO EASY" about something that was definitely framed not to be easy. If your cutoff of "world class mathematician" is a few hundred or thousand people, then no chance. If their cutoff is "earn a comfortable living" and the top 10% of the world is 800,000,000 people most of whom don't study mathem…

>you can adjust the numbers and criterion to get a yes or no whichever way you like.

Good idea, I'll do that :)

>can an average intellect with an obsession for math end up

>working on AutoCAD or 3D rendering game engine or industrial statistics and process control or economics or vehicle aerodynamics and be in the top 10% of the world in mathematical ability?

I think this does happen quite a bit and the need for strong math in these difficult areas is so great that there will never be enough people as briliant as Tao to fill the positions.

That's so far outside the mainstream anyway, most systems are going to screen the rare person like that out without understanding why.

Now what happens when those having top 10% of ability are very excellent themselves, but cases come up that would yield only to a Tao level of "natural-born" problem-solver?

Nobody would ever know :\

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

#273

Post by zozbot234 »

toraway wrote: post #270
exceptione wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latin and Greek are classical, 'dead' languages.

Latin/Greek were considered part of the core curriculum for a well-rounded classical education in the upper-class for hundreds of years (some degree of retained proficiency wasn't unusual in graduates of the elite schools in Britain even through the mid 20th century). Not spoken as a primary language, sure, but far from "dead" in education. Latin was required for philosophy, law, rhetoric, and the classics. Greek ske…

Latin was the common lingua franca for scholarship even into the 18th century so studying the classical languages was genuinely useful, not just a parlor trick. It's the equivalent of a modern child prodigy in a non-English speaking country learning English as a young age to access present-day research.

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

#274

Post by marttt »

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…

Nils M. Holm's essays about highly intelligent people and IQ are worth a read here -- "Where Do The Failed 0.1% Go?" [1] and others [2].

1: https://t3x.org/files/vidya_324-325_NH_reprint.pdf (on HN 2015, 170 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13145853)

2: https://t3x.org/#essays

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

#275

Post by drivebyhooting »

I would really like to know the origin story better. Accounts make it sound like Terence learned to read and arithmetic completely on his own by being plopped in front of Sesame Street.

That strains credulity. Those familiar with common Chinese parenting strategies know how involved and directly instructed they can be at times. How much of that has been downplayed (And for what purpose)?

I don’t mean to undermine any of Tao’s achievements. They are unassailable. But I genuinely want to know a true account of what it took to get him there.

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

#276

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

defrost wrote: post #166
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #163

> he entries marked with an asterisk (*) were to take place at Bellevue Heights Primary School (Year 5) and the others at Blackwood High School (year 8: General Studies, Year 11: Physics, Year 12: Mathematics). So he was able to attend classes out of his own year. What country is this? USA? Is that normal in the USA? I think here in the UK this isn't possible.

As others said, Australia. Like Terence I also had "out of band" classes and free time to read advance material in both primary and high school. During that period Australia also had good federal and state programs for clustering advanced kids on yearly subsidised specialist camps - optional and free if parents couldn't afford to chip in. I bumped into him at the same time Paul Erdős was doing the rounds and hanging…

Do you have any idea how one would go about understanding the current status quo in terms of advancing kids? E.g. which countries do it etc.

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

#277

Post by danielmarkbruce »

jodrellblank wrote: post #264
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.

It seems like a bit of a pointless and unanswerable argument about semantics, the only bit is the irritating "ohh if it's SOOO EASY" about something that was definitely framed not to be easy. If your cutoff of "world class mathematician" is a few hundred or thousand people, then no chance. If their cutoff is "earn a comfortable living" and the top 10% of the world is 800,000,000 people most of whom don't study mathem…

A mathematician is someone who creates or advances math. Not someone who uses math. If you don't understand how the word is used, that's your problem, not a problem with the statement.

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

#278

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

markus_zhang wrote: post #261

I’d kudos his parents. The parents deliberately brought themselves out of the picture, but as a parent I know how hard it is. No, I don’t mean it is hard to feed a kid and educate him a bit. That’s like at least 70% of the parents can do. What is remarkable is that they not only found Terence’s interests and nurtured on it, consistently without any major error. God you have no idea how hard it is. So many constellati…

Phew this resonated with me.

Before becoming a parent I'd always thought "when I have a kid I'll teach him such and such" but now turns out that my kid just wants to jump around and break things.

I don't know, let me know if you want to talk. Mine is little over 4yo.

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

#279

Post by jonahx »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #253
jonahx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Few claims in the social sciences are more fully settled. I don't think you could find a researcher in the world at a major university making that claim that randomly selected children could be reliably turned into world-class mathematicians with enough training.

> How else would you explain the Polgar sisters?

Genetics is the obvious explanation. The father was clearly very intelligent.

Also to clarify: I agree that training and effort can have large effects, and that focusing on them is a good strategy. Over-believing in them is probably a good bias, even. But the idea that everyone is more or less the same except for effort is ridiculous.

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

#280

Post by mmooss »

confidantlake wrote: post #151
mmooss wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another requirement is the emotional capacity at 8 years old to focus, feel confident, and feel safe. I think that is the main obstacle to most people doing highly effective work and putting in long hours. You hear some call people who don't 'work hard' lazy, but my impression is that it's emotional capacity, and a lot of that comes from family. I wonder if there is a correlation between prodigies and emotionally sta…

Yes the correlation is there but it doesn't really matter. There are hundreds of millions of kids growing up with stable healthy parents and a handful of prodigies.

There are a only handful of prodigies regardless of what we're talking about, but I think that is a misguided way to look at the situation:

If my GP comment is true to some significant degree, it matters for people who are prodigies. It matters for the world, which benefits from the prodigies.

But I don't want to underemphasize the first or overemphasize the second. These are human beings, which is the overwhelming issue. They have the same needs and same importance as everyone else. That means we don't want to disregard their needs either because they are unusual and therefore more expensive to nurture, or because the world benefits from them and and doesn't care about their individual needs or thinks their needs can be sacrificed.

And on a similar basis, it has strong implications for all the other kids in the world, who need stable, loving, nurturing family.

Post reply on HN