81–90 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it is necessary but not sufficient?
There are instances of success without perseverance. For instance, the guy who invented GANs did it in one evening, more or less on a whim. One could argue that education and probably IQ were the dominant enablers there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it is necessary but not sufficient?
There are instances of success without perseverance. For instance, the guy who invented GANs did it in one evening, more or less on a whim. One could argue that education and probably IQ were the dominant enablers there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is an online community focused on dealing with this issue.
MENSA?
I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and anxiety problems. So yes, the best CPU doesn't help if the IO is constantly blocked.
Title of the article isn't
"High IQ always makes you successful"
Correct examples for claim in the title would be low IQ ppl becoming very succesful. Anyone know any low IQ successful ppl ?
I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and anxiety problems. So yes, the best CPU doesn't help if the IO is constantly blocked.
> I know a few people with >130 IQ and they all have executive disfunction and anxiety problems. Title of the article isn't "High IQ always makes you successful" Correct examples for claim in the title would be low IQ ppl becoming very succesful. Anyone know any low IQ successful ppl ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like all quotes, on first glance it appears insightful and impressive, but a closer second look reveals it to be nonsense. > Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Luck and circumstance can. > Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. The world is also…
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Preparation comes from persistence.
"Your parents have funny names for their genitals"
I think that luck is the only one you can't replace.
I wonder how many IQ test misclassify intelligence? Feynman had a score of 125 and many people here have a high score than that. I bet no one here with a higher score of 125 are actually smarter than Feynman though. I think this is just one of many possible such examples where IQ test miss the purported people they were suppose to capture. Feynman’s score wouldn’t even qualify him for MENSA. I wonder how many IQ exam…
I'm around 150, and I don't consider myself smarter than Feynman. And I'm no savant, am socially well adjusted, and not on the autism scale. This, among many other data points, has led me to question the entire concept of IQ. The measurement of IQ borders on pseudo-science. It measures something, but what exactly? Everyone has a different answer. Ok, sure, intelligence. Now try to define "intelligence" empirically. W…
Compare "mass". What is mass? Can you really define it? You can say what it does, but what "is" it? Well, nobody can define it, except in terms of the things that it does. Because those are all we see of it. We can measure it, we see those measurements let us predict other outcomes. So we can use our knowledge of mass in practical, predictive ways to build things and accomplish things. Physicists still don't know what it "is" and they don't have to.
Now intelligence. You can measure it. The measurements stay stable on a given person over time and between tests. The measurements predict a wide variety of outcomes - both of a large life scale (income, longevity, criminality, etc) and on an individual task scale (this person can learn X in Y time). It's the most solid, repeatable, predictive result in all of psychometrics - more than personality traits or anything else we can measure about the mind. but what "is" it? It's the thing that predicts all those outcomes. No practical use for it requires that it be anything else.
The whole "what is intelligence anyway" thing is a giant red herring; it's a specific case of a general-purpose counterargument that can be used to attack literally any statement about anything by demanding endlessly more rigorous definitions of the terms involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are instances of success without perseverance. For instance, the guy who invented GANs did it in one evening, more or less on a whim. One could argue that education and probably IQ were the dominant enablers there.
Maybe he attained the skills necessary to invent GANs in one evening through years of persistent learning?
Also, there are other examples of success without perseverance. Obvious ones are inherited success: e.g. just being born as king makes one - well, a king. No perseverance necessary. FWIW, I do think it's a game of probabilities - all these traits (education, IQ, perseverance etc) increase your odds of success to certain degree - and none of them guarantee it.
If you compare the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the distribution I bet there will be a strong correlation to professional sucess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like all quotes, on first glance it appears insightful and impressive, but a closer second look reveals it to be nonsense. > Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Luck and circumstance can. > Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. The world is also…
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Preparation comes from persistence.