71–80 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how when Richard Feynman's IQ test score doesn't conform to some narrative, HN is in contortions with excuses why the test doesn't matter, but when we come around to the topic of white IQ supremacy, suddenly HN is armed to the teeth with factoids about how g-loaded and circumstantially neutral the mainstream IQ tests are.
Thomas, were the same folks making these comments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…
Thing is, it doesn't seem to pay, at least in the employment market. Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back end dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy) it's very unlikely to get you a better salary. In fact if you've diverged from a straight specialism throughout your career it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usage of Feynman's official IQ score as some sort of 'proof' of anything is often overused. I don't have the exact citation but it is fairly well documented that he scored well on other very challenging tests that correlate strongly with IQ (not to mention his actual career accomplishments). Needless to say, people bandying around his score on this one test as evidence that he was 'bright but not in a high IQ' way is…
I like how when Richard Feynman's IQ test score doesn't conform to some narrative, HN is in contortions with excuses why the test doesn't matter, but when we come around to the topic of white IQ supremacy, suddenly HN is armed to the teeth with factoids about how g-loaded and circumstantially neutral the mainstream IQ tests are.
Sorry for the snark but do you honestly not see that there is a difference between the two cases?
Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": > Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. Then proceeds with: > Despite the world’s immense need for polymaths, these individuals seem to be quite rare. That’s because…
Feynman is kinda the counter argument though — I think his IQ was 120ish. Obviously very smart, but his unique insights seem to have come more from a broad base of knowledge and an intensely curious personality vs raw brain power. I don’t think you need to be a genius to make an impact in a lot of fields.
Richard Feynman was obviously brilliant, based on any measure of real life impact you can imagine. Meanwhile, an IQ test is just something we made up.
The only reasonable approach to this set of data is to conclude that IQ is not as good as we wish at actually measuring intelligence.
Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": > Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. Then proceeds with: > Despite the world’s immense need for polymaths, these individuals seem to be quite rare. That’s because…
I would disagree. A polymath is an expert / master of multiple fields (let’s say 3 or more). A genius does not necessarily excel in multiple fields, but he will certainly produce novel, groundbreaking contributions to a specific field. A genius tends to be a specialist — at least where his major contributions and legacy lies.
A generalist is not necessarily an expert or master of any field. He could just know enough in each field to be competent. So I think we’re talking about 3 different people: geniuses, generalists, and polymaths.
Anyone with a liberal arts degree can operate as a generalist. Leonardo Da Vinci and Ben Franklin were polymaths. Einstein and Feynman had genius.
Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": > Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. Then proceeds with: > Despite the world’s immense need for polymaths, these individuals seem to be quite rare. That’s because…
> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…
Edit to add: Great drawing skill does not matter for most comic strips. Look at Peanuts, or Garfield, or more recently Pearls Before Swine or XKCD. Ryan North has been posting Dinosaur Comics 3 times a week for 15 years using the same art for every single one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usage of Feynman's official IQ score as some sort of 'proof' of anything is often overused. I don't have the exact citation but it is fairly well documented that he scored well on other very challenging tests that correlate strongly with IQ (not to mention his actual career accomplishments). Needless to say, people bandying around his score on this one test as evidence that he was 'bright but not in a high IQ' way is…
I like how when Richard Feynman's IQ test score doesn't conform to some narrative, HN is in contortions with excuses why the test doesn't matter, but when we come around to the topic of white IQ supremacy, suddenly HN is armed to the teeth with factoids about how g-loaded and circumstantially neutral the mainstream IQ tests are.
[1] An unreliable/uncertain one, even.
What is the point of this article then? Maybe it is popular, cheap reading like Malcolm Gladwell and something in the line of "career advice".
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” --Robert Heinlein
Changing diapers and pitching manure? Not so much.
Dying gallantly? Only get to practice that once, so how would you get good at it?
People throw this quote around because it is fun to imagine yourself as a supremely Competent Man in all these domains. Indeed, it makes for excellent fiction—-but it is just that, fiction. When you actually start trying to seriously think about investing in specialized skills like military science, this quote quickly reveals itself to have not made any distinction between life skills that the average person should have and things which require years of study.