John_Maxwell_IV comments on Reaching young math/compsci talent - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (75)
Well, we need lots of help besides elite young math/compsci talent. You could contact louie.helm [at] singinst.org and explain your experience and qualifications. Thanks for your interest!
Is it really optimal to dismiss Incorrect as not being elite math/computer science talent so quickly?
Also, are you familiar with growth versus static models of intelligence? This looks to me like you are promoting a static model, which amounts to destroying a public good in my view.
University professors don't tell students they are too stupid to contribute to the problems they are trying to solve. I don't see why SI should either.
I didn't interpret lukeprog's comment as dismissing Incorrect as not being elite talent. I thought he was just noting that, whether he is "elite" or not, he can contact Louie to find out how he can help.
Correct.
While I agree with most of this (and have upvoted) two points stand out:
I don't think bringing this up helps your point very much. While there are individuals whose apparent extreme talent blooms fairly late (e.g. Steven Chu who didn't really start being that impressive until he was in college), the lack of change of IQ scores over time on average is very robust, dating back to Spearman's original research about a hundred years ago. This is also true for other metrics of intelligence. By and large, intelligence is pretty static.
This is true, but professors do sometimes tell students when a problem may just be out of their league. To use an extreme example, consider a grad student who walks into his adviser's office and says he wants to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. That said, your essential point is valid, because even in that case, a professor could still direct them to some easier related problem or helpful question related to some aspect of it. So your basic point is valid.
Intelligence seems relatively static, but AFAIK once you've reached a certain minimum threshold in intelligence, conscientiousness becomes a more important factor for actual accomplishment. (Anecdotally and intuitively, conscientiousness seems more amenable to change, but I don't know if the psychological evidence supports that.)
Wait, there's real evidence of durable changes in conscientiousness? Point me its way. The psychology literature does not appear (after a brief search) to support the idea of lasting change. I would be happy to be wrong.
Well, there's http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Eisenberger-Learned-industriousness.pdf
Sorry, I should have been more clear: I only have anecdotal evidence, and a rather small sample at that. I'll edit my comment.
Mind sharing your source for relatively static IQ? I feel like I've read otherwise, especially for children.
Childhood IQs don't correlate that tightly with adult IQs. But once people are in their late teens change already becomes very unlikely.
Yes, in the lower end there's some flexbility, especially in the mid teens but after that change is relatively static.
I'm not sure how strongly IQ correlates with real-world abilities (well, actually, I am sure: 0.2-0.6 depending on the task 1). You don't need exceptional IQ to do new math (see Richard Feynman) but you do need an interest in math and quite a bit of exposure. Synesthesia can also be helpful.
I'm not finding a non-paywalled version right now, and unfortunately am not at my university at the moment to access it.
How many mathematicians consciously try to extract heuristics from their problem-solving process and keep them in a database, or track how environmental factors like diet and activities affect their productivity?
Has there ever been a team of mathematicians teamed with the team of mathematician optimizers who observed the mathematicians like lab animals? :D
Soviet Russia produced a remarkable amount of math, and ideologically was well-suited to such testing or design; they ultimately created whole academic cities for science and math, optimized (or at least, not pessimized like the rest of Soviet Russia) for research.
In fact, what I know of the Russian math academic system strikes me as reminiscent of the impression I have of the very successful athletic systems in both Russia and America: take young kids showing promise with relatives in related areas, push them hard with experienced tutors themselves skilled in the area, provide the resources they might need, various incentives for them and the relatives, and don't let off the slack until they begin to flag in their late 20s/early 30s at which point they take their tutors' places.
Read this today, "Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science", which is very germane to this discussion.
It also discusses athletics.
I studied in specialized soviet school (well, post soviet, but same teachers). It had tough entrance exam. I say in past tense because it was dismantled. The biggest thing about those is that we study deeper and with better understanding instead of skipping ahead to make prodigies that understand same topics equally badly but at earlier age, and never really become very competent at anything.
Also, on the humanities, while there may be less % of humanities, the students are smarter and go ahead faster and still retain/understand more than average at typical humanities course.
Did you just go meta on the process of going less meta?