8 ms·

I don't feel like that's true. I didn't expend any effort on my studies and it just came easily to me. Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference betw

by iopq 10y ago

I don't feel like that's true. I didn't expend any effort on my studies and it just came easily to me. Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference between my aptitude towards anything and the average person. I scored in the 99th percentile in math on the California high school exit exam. I went to community college at 15 (while still taking some high school courses at first, but upon taking the proficiency exam I stopped taking high school courses), I transferred to a university as a junior at 17. It took me longer to graduate at that point, but it was mostly because I was expected to do work and I never did before. I hated learning in a structured manner and being forced to do things. In fact, my lack of focus is what led me to learn about things on my own. I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I struggled with it, but it was fun. Then I'd read some physics instead because I felt like it. Maybe successful people have lazer focus. But not all talented people are focused.

BatFastard 10y ago
The Genius bar is not really that high, so I suspect you qualify. I bet there is a bit of ADHD thrown in there, which often accounts for not liking structured learning as much.
JacobJans 10y ago
>I didn't expend any effort on my studies >I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I suggest that you, indeed, spent effort on your studies.
- iopq 10y ago
  Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Give me homework and I'll run away screaming. I used to HATE the language subjects. Now that I'm not being forced to do it, I enjoy linguistics.
  - croon 10y ago
    When you disagreed in your first comment you disagreed to this: > But it boils down to the hours that kids put into their interests. While you then go on to say that that is exactly what you yourself did. That you don't like being forced to learn is besides the point, but also sort of confirms it. You spend time (learning) on things you enjoy. That's how you become "gifted". The trick is having kids be engaged with something productive and not spending time on [insert subjective detrimental activity here]. Whether parents can influence that or it's down to luck is debatable, but I definitely lean towards the former.
  - ef4 10y ago
    You're just describing one of the most well-established facts about learning: the dominant factor is intrinsic motivation. Whether you call them hobbies or studies, the fact that you were intrinsically motivated to pour effort into them is why you got so good at them.
  - jawarner 10y ago
    > Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Then your case does not contradict the OC's view that "Gifted children are "gifted" with a laser focus on the unusual things that they find fun - math, music, what-have-you."
    - iopq 10y ago
      I didn't have lazer focus, in fact I spread myself over many different subjects. I studied zoogeography, physics, chemistry, history, etc. because I thought those things were interesting. This didn't stop me from finding calculus to be approachable and easy.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  Calculus textbooks are difficult but rewarding. A 10 year old child who can enjoy them must have some gift that makes it easier for them to understand the difficult parts quickly and get straight to the rewarding part.
  - geocar 10y ago
    > must have some gift Or what? The rest of us are dumb? It could have been a good teacher, who found a way to make it make sense, or some other series of positive reinforcement that shaped them and prepared them, to be thinking about mathematics clearly. It doesn't have to be the luck of the draw. I don't want anyone to give up, thinking they just didn't get the gift, so they should be content with playing with the ball. If you don't get mathematics, you might just haven't had the right circumstances to get it yet.
    - magicalist 10y ago
      Agreed. How many comments have we had on HN about particular subjects saying things like, "I just didn't enjoy learning the math, I never got a mathematical concept at an intuitive level, etc, until particular use case X came up for me, and now I really understand it. Why didn't my teachers teach it like that in the first place??" Whether or not it would have worked to teach it that way in the original circumstances (perhaps there were other things that needed to fall into place first), it's very clear that the right motivation and the right context have a huge impact on people's eagerness to learn and their ability to grok a concept.
    - iopq 10y ago
      I was self-taught. It was actually very frustrating asking my mother for an explanation because what she told me was technically correct, but not useful in explaining why the textbook said what it did. What we both missed is that the textbook said it was a UNIT circle which meant that the radius was one. After this I didn't really rely on her help anymore.
    - neeleshs 10y ago
      Indeed, I love https://betterexplained.com/ https://betterexplained.com/ which is all about intuitive understanding of calculus and other stuff. A post on the constant 'e' - nobody ever told me what that number really means. More such material, and a willingness to learn is all thats needed for a majority of folks, in my opinion Edit: typo
jaunkst 10y ago
I believe intellectual aptitude can be learned. Spending time nurture core problem solving skills in various domains. The education system today depends on things like memorization and not on teaching students how to think. I had mediocre success through the education program, and it was not until the mid 20's that I developed a strong mental model. Sometimes I even feel cheated that I was not exposed to the right challenges. Today most of my acquaintances, friends, and colleague respect my intelligence and its one of the attributes I am most proud of.
- smnplk 10y ago
  You are such a humble person.
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
> Maybe successful people have lazer focus. It's probably more fun or compulsive than laser focus. One savant was described as a calendar addict. He'd ask when you were born first thing when he met you. He developed an ability to calculate the day of the week for any given date in seconds.
- matthewvincent 10y ago
  I met someone like this once, he could also tell you the phase of the moon on the day you were born as well as all the celebrities born that day. It was pretty striking.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
    It's pretty striking you could tell he was right :)
- netrus 10y ago
  I always think that is such a weird party trick that it is strange that savants develop it ob their own. You have to be a genius to do that without a structured system - but everyone can do that given an hour or two to remember the first day of the week for every decade, the number of days oer quarter%7, etc.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
    The guys who wrote Peak are probably sub-geniuses then, because they think some savants have figured out a system. In the book they call it mental representation. It's the obsessive ones who develop the skill, some just remain autistic and that's it. They would say it is our bias and desire to believe in magic that predispose us to believe these people are just gifted.
paulpauper 10y ago
I think you qualify as a genius. The technical definition of 'genius' is someone with a high-IQ (usually above 140), although the definition has since been modified to mean someone who accomplishes something of significant creative merit.
- magicalist 10y ago
  > The technical definition of 'genius' is someone with a high-IQ (usually above 140) according to who? The best I can find is that a particular IQ test (the Stanford-Binet test) used that definition from 1916 to 1937[1]. Might be time to update your sources :P [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius#IQ_and_genius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius#IQ_and_genius
findK 10y ago
"Now I am not a genius, but.." You know, I think you might be a genius dude.
blubb-fish 10y ago
> Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference between my aptitude towards anything and the average person. anything - I bet you just don't know how little aptitude you have at things you didn't happen to spend time with. > It took me longer to graduate at that point, but it was mostly because I was expected to do work and I never did before. Or - you're not that smart and good with excuses :) > I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I struggled with it, but it was fun. Reading is not understanding - maybe you just enjoyed the attention that you got from it. > Then I'd read some physics instead because I felt like it. Alright - very impressive! > But not all talented people are focused. This contextually implies you consider yourself talented - well, quite possible you are just pretty untalented at self reflection.
- iopq 10y ago
  > anything - I bet you just don't know how little aptitude you have at things you didn't happen to spend time with. As compared to other people trying things for the first time I'm usually a very quick learner. I think being a quick learner is innate. I've had the ability to learn things quickly since early childhood. > Reading is not understanding - maybe you just enjoyed the attention that you got from it. I didn't get any attention from this, I tried to hide it from other kids so I don't stand out too much. When I placed first in the math Olympiad they kind of resented me and said "oh, he studies like a grade ahead of the rest of us". I was actually much further ahead. Calculus is NOT that hard. It's not a super power to be able to understand calculus. It's just a little bit more abstract (limits and so forth are not intuitive for some people). > This contextually implies you consider yourself talented I think I'm talented. I just don't actually do anything useful with my life. The last course I had to complete to finish college was a technical writing course. It was 100% busywork and presentations and posters and BSing. It was the worst.
  - blubb-fish 10y ago
    > I think I'm talented. I just don't actually do anything useful with my life. mmh ... what a calm and measured response. and now I feel a bit bad for having responded so harsh - though honestly more tongue in cheek. actually I can relate to what you said. also read calculus and algebra books as a teenager, wrote a book about JavaScript when I was fifteen, later studied math, most of my teachers in high school told me on a regular basis that I'm a genius and our gifted. now, I wouldn't say that I didn't do anything useful with my life ... though nothing useful of the academic or technological kind. I rather lost respect for intelligence, the focus on IQ, status symbols and success in general. instead i try to become a happier and inspired person which brings something good to the world and into the life of the people surrounding me.
Silhouette 10y ago
Now, I'm not a genius And yet you also told us: I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I scored in the 99th percentile in math on the California high school exit exam. I transferred to a university as a junior at 17. Regardless of the nature/nurture debate, if you can achieve those things at those ages with any amount of work then you are clearly far smarter than most people, at least when it comes to mathematics.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  That is exactly what he argued - that his achievements are due to being smart rather than "laser focused". Not being a genius means that he is merely 2 standard deviations smarter than the mean (think "there's a few of those in every high school class") rather than 4 standard deviations smarter like the kids in the SMPY.
  - dx034 10y ago
    >think "there's a few of those in every high school class" Rather a few of those in every high school. 2 standard deviations means 2.5% per side. This is one in 40 people, so probably on average 2-3 people per year in an average high school. Of course, pre selection can lead to higher values, but having several children outside of 2std dev in a class won't be average in the vast majority of schools.
1812Overture 10y ago
Are you me? Pretty much same story here, except in Arizona not California.
cecilpl 10y ago
I agree with you. As a teenager, I seemed to have an intuitive ability to understand concepts that others struggled with. I tend to grok concepts very quickly and once I do, I don't forget them. I would sit in class and play games (which I'd programmed) on my TI-83, or read books. I would drift my attention to the teacher's lecture occasionally, just enough to convince myself I understood what was being taught, then back to my game. I never took notes, nor did I study for tests, even through my undergrad in computer science. I got an A+ in multivariable calculus just by listening to the prof talk, and piecing together my comprehension on the fly. As far as focus goes, often my focus is laser guided but I'm not in control of the laser. When something catches my interest, it becomes all I can think about for weeks. I'll obsess over it and learn everything I can about it, until my interest wanes. I'm left with really deep knowledge of really obscure topics, and shallow-to-nonexistent knowledge of many common topics, which makes me a surprising conversation partner.

by iopq 10y ago

BatFastard 10y ago

The Genius bar is not really that high, so I suspect you qualify. I bet there is a bit of ADHD thrown in there, which often accounts for not liking structured learning as much.

JacobJans 10y ago

>I didn't expend any effort on my studies >I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I suggest that you, indeed, spent effort on your studies.

iopq 10y ago
Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Give me homework and I'll run away screaming. I used to HATE the language subjects. Now that I'm not being forced to do it, I enjoy linguistics.
- croon 10y ago
  When you disagreed in your first comment you disagreed to this: > But it boils down to the hours that kids put into their interests. While you then go on to say that that is exactly what you yourself did. That you don't like being forced to learn is besides the point, but also sort of confirms it. You spend time (learning) on things you enjoy. That's how you become "gifted". The trick is having kids be engaged with something productive and not spending time on [insert subjective detrimental activity here]. Whether parents can influence that or it's down to luck is debatable, but I definitely lean towards the former.
- ef4 10y ago
  You're just describing one of the most well-established facts about learning: the dominant factor is intrinsic motivation. Whether you call them hobbies or studies, the fact that you were intrinsically motivated to pour effort into them is why you got so good at them.
- jawarner 10y ago
  > Those weren't my studies. Those were my hobbies. Then your case does not contradict the OC's view that "Gifted children are "gifted" with a laser focus on the unusual things that they find fun - math, music, what-have-you."
  - iopq 10y ago
    I didn't have lazer focus, in fact I spread myself over many different subjects. I studied zoogeography, physics, chemistry, history, etc. because I thought those things were interesting. This didn't stop me from finding calculus to be approachable and easy.
saint_fiasco 10y ago
Calculus textbooks are difficult but rewarding. A 10 year old child who can enjoy them must have some gift that makes it easier for them to understand the difficult parts quickly and get straight to the rewarding part.
- geocar 10y ago
  > must have some gift Or what? The rest of us are dumb? It could have been a good teacher, who found a way to make it make sense, or some other series of positive reinforcement that shaped them and prepared them, to be thinking about mathematics clearly. It doesn't have to be the luck of the draw. I don't want anyone to give up, thinking they just didn't get the gift, so they should be content with playing with the ball. If you don't get mathematics, you might just haven't had the right circumstances to get it yet.
  - magicalist 10y ago
    Agreed. How many comments have we had on HN about particular subjects saying things like, "I just didn't enjoy learning the math, I never got a mathematical concept at an intuitive level, etc, until particular use case X came up for me, and now I really understand it. Why didn't my teachers teach it like that in the first place??" Whether or not it would have worked to teach it that way in the original circumstances (perhaps there were other things that needed to fall into place first), it's very clear that the right motivation and the right context have a huge impact on people's eagerness to learn and their ability to grok a concept.
  - iopq 10y ago
    I was self-taught. It was actually very frustrating asking my mother for an explanation because what she told me was technically correct, but not useful in explaining why the textbook said what it did. What we both missed is that the textbook said it was a UNIT circle which meant that the radius was one. After this I didn't really rely on her help anymore.
  - neeleshs 10y ago
    Indeed, I love https://betterexplained.com/ https://betterexplained.com/ which is all about intuitive understanding of calculus and other stuff. A post on the constant 'e' - nobody ever told me what that number really means. More such material, and a willingness to learn is all thats needed for a majority of folks, in my opinion Edit: typo

jaunkst 10y ago

I believe intellectual aptitude can be learned. Spending time nurture core problem solving skills in various domains. The education system today depends on things like memorization and not on teaching students how to think. I had mediocre success through the education program, and it was not until the mid 20's that I developed a strong mental model. Sometimes I even feel cheated that I was not exposed to the right challenges. Today most of my acquaintances, friends, and colleague respect my intelligence and its one of the attributes I am most proud of.

smnplk 10y ago
You are such a humble person.

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago

> Maybe successful people have lazer focus. It's probably more fun or compulsive than laser focus. One savant was described as a calendar addict. He'd ask when you were born first thing when he met you. He developed an ability to calculate the day of the week for any given date in seconds.

matthewvincent 10y ago
I met someone like this once, he could also tell you the phase of the moon on the day you were born as well as all the celebrities born that day. It was pretty striking.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  It's pretty striking you could tell he was right :)
netrus 10y ago
I always think that is such a weird party trick that it is strange that savants develop it ob their own. You have to be a genius to do that without a structured system - but everyone can do that given an hour or two to remember the first day of the week for every decade, the number of days oer quarter%7, etc.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  The guys who wrote Peak are probably sub-geniuses then, because they think some savants have figured out a system. In the book they call it mental representation. It's the obsessive ones who develop the skill, some just remain autistic and that's it. They would say it is our bias and desire to believe in magic that predispose us to believe these people are just gifted.

paulpauper 10y ago

I think you qualify as a genius. The technical definition of 'genius' is someone with a high-IQ (usually above 140), although the definition has since been modified to mean someone who accomplishes something of significant creative merit.

magicalist 10y ago
> The technical definition of 'genius' is someone with a high-IQ (usually above 140) according to who? The best I can find is that a particular IQ test (the Stanford-Binet test) used that definition from 1916 to 1937[1]. Might be time to update your sources :P [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius#IQ_and_genius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius#IQ_and_genius

findK 10y ago

"Now I am not a genius, but.." You know, I think you might be a genius dude.

blubb-fish 10y ago

> Now, I'm not a genius, but there's a huge difference between my aptitude towards anything and the average person. anything - I bet you just don't know how little aptitude you have at things you didn't happen to spend time with. > It took me longer to graduate at that point, but it was mostly because I was expected to do work and I never did before. Or - you're not that smart and good with excuses :) > I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I struggled with it, but it was fun. Reading is not understanding - maybe you just enjoyed the attention that you got from it. > Then I'd read some physics instead because I felt like it. Alright - very impressive! > But not all talented people are focused. This contextually implies you consider yourself talented - well, quite possible you are just pretty untalented at self reflection.

iopq 10y ago
> anything - I bet you just don't know how little aptitude you have at things you didn't happen to spend time with. As compared to other people trying things for the first time I'm usually a very quick learner. I think being a quick learner is innate. I've had the ability to learn things quickly since early childhood. > Reading is not understanding - maybe you just enjoyed the attention that you got from it. I didn't get any attention from this, I tried to hide it from other kids so I don't stand out too much. When I placed first in the math Olympiad they kind of resented me and said "oh, he studies like a grade ahead of the rest of us". I was actually much further ahead. Calculus is NOT that hard. It's not a super power to be able to understand calculus. It's just a little bit more abstract (limits and so forth are not intuitive for some people). > This contextually implies you consider yourself talented I think I'm talented. I just don't actually do anything useful with my life. The last course I had to complete to finish college was a technical writing course. It was 100% busywork and presentations and posters and BSing. It was the worst.
- blubb-fish 10y ago
  > I think I'm talented. I just don't actually do anything useful with my life. mmh ... what a calm and measured response. and now I feel a bit bad for having responded so harsh - though honestly more tongue in cheek. actually I can relate to what you said. also read calculus and algebra books as a teenager, wrote a book about JavaScript when I was fifteen, later studied math, most of my teachers in high school told me on a regular basis that I'm a genius and our gifted. now, I wouldn't say that I didn't do anything useful with my life ... though nothing useful of the academic or technological kind. I rather lost respect for intelligence, the focus on IQ, status symbols and success in general. instead i try to become a happier and inspired person which brings something good to the world and into the life of the people surrounding me.

Silhouette 10y ago

Now, I'm not a genius And yet you also told us: I was reading calculus textbooks when I was 10 years old. I scored in the 99th percentile in math on the California high school exit exam. I transferred to a university as a junior at 17. Regardless of the nature/nurture debate, if you can achieve those things at those ages with any amount of work then you are clearly far smarter than most people, at least when it comes to mathematics.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
That is exactly what he argued - that his achievements are due to being smart rather than "laser focused". Not being a genius means that he is merely 2 standard deviations smarter than the mean (think "there's a few of those in every high school class") rather than 4 standard deviations smarter like the kids in the SMPY.
- dx034 10y ago
  >think "there's a few of those in every high school class" Rather a few of those in every high school. 2 standard deviations means 2.5% per side. This is one in 40 people, so probably on average 2-3 people per year in an average high school. Of course, pre selection can lead to higher values, but having several children outside of 2std dev in a class won't be average in the vast majority of schools.

1812Overture 10y ago

Are you me? Pretty much same story here, except in Arizona not California.

cecilpl 10y ago

I agree with you. As a teenager, I seemed to have an intuitive ability to understand concepts that others struggled with. I tend to grok concepts very quickly and once I do, I don't forget them. I would sit in class and play games (which I'd programmed) on my TI-83, or read books. I would drift my attention to the teacher's lecture occasionally, just enough to convince myself I understood what was being taught, then back to my game. I never took notes, nor did I study for tests, even through my undergrad in computer science. I got an A+ in multivariable calculus just by listening to the prof talk, and piecing together my comprehension on the fly. As far as focus goes, often my focus is laser guided but I'm not in control of the laser. When something catches my interest, it becomes all I can think about for weeks. I'll obsess over it and learn everything I can about it, until my interest wanes. I'm left with really deep knowledge of really obscure topics, and shallow-to-nonexistent knowledge of many common topics, which makes me a surprising conversation partner.