= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Teaching the Unteachable - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (17)
This is my thought too. And I actually think you're underestimating the role that selection plays. Higher level academia is actually very good and finding talent and the talented students and the talented professors all flock to the same institutions both for independent reasons (funding) and because they prefer the company of one another. You do not do grad work under a Nobel prize winner unless everyone in your field has already notices you and thinks it somewhat possible that you could one day win a Nobel prize. I'm actually astonished the number of Nobel prize winners who worked under other prize winners is as LOW as Eliezer says.
That doesn't mean there isn't some method to genius that could be taught but I haven't see evidence that there is anything that can be taught.
Read literally, this sounds completely unrealistic.
Yes. It is not literally true. Nonetheless, I'd bet students of Nobel winners almost always show significant promise. Moreover, they're likely working in areas where Nobel prizers are likely to be won- what I mean is, there are some areas in any given field where work is likelier to yield a Nobel, even controlling for the quality of the work. In Physics, for example, Nobel's are rarely awarded for the more theoretical work on less established subjects. So since the students of Nobel winners are usually in the same fields it makes sense that they would have a high then average likelihood of winning one as well.