3 ms·

The best analogy is with general athletic ability. Yes of course, athletic ability is a multi-faceted thing; yes you can be good in different ways; yes, being

The best analogy is with general athletic ability. Yes of course, athletic ability is a multi-faceted thing; yes you can be good in different ways; yes, being the very best as baseball does not make the you very best at football; etc. Nonetheless, athletic-ness is a robust, real concept, which is very heritable, predictive of athletic success. Importantly, it encodes the empirical fact that if you are good at X compared to the general population, you are more likely to be good at Y, where X and Y can be almost any athletic activity.

therealdrag0 9y ago
To tie your analogy back in: There is correlation in intellectual capacity between categories of intelligence (linguistic, mathematic, spacial, etc.). Individuals capabilities vary, but on average individuals high in one area are rarely below average in other area. (Anecdote: I found it no problem to get degrees in both Computer Science AND English with minors in French and Philosophy. Some people find it strange that someone could do both types of things, but I just like learning everything!)
- rimliu 9y ago
  My friend, a math teacher, had this saying: only 5% are good at math, but those 5% are good at anything.
  - Fraterkes 9y ago
    Very modest
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - andai 9y ago
    I was told this was the reason people study math, and companies hire those people: "If you can get a degree in math, you prove yourself to be intelligent and hard working. Companies like those kind of people."
    - therealdrag0 9y ago
      Same with philosophy. My schools philosophy department had stats showing their students had higher writing scores than English students and didn't have significant unemployment (I forget what they compared employment to).
omegaham 9y ago
My favorite picture of this is Rob Gronkowski as a 12-year-old[1]. Getting into the NFL requires hard work, but it's not sufficient; without the genetic athleticism, you aren't getting in. [1] https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-at-12.jpg https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-...

therealdrag0 9y ago

To tie your analogy back in: There is correlation in intellectual capacity between categories of intelligence (linguistic, mathematic, spacial, etc.). Individuals capabilities vary, but on average individuals high in one area are rarely below average in other area. (Anecdote: I found it no problem to get degrees in both Computer Science AND English with minors in French and Philosophy. Some people find it strange that someone could do both types of things, but I just like learning everything!)

rimliu 9y ago
My friend, a math teacher, had this saying: only 5% are good at math, but those 5% are good at anything.
- Fraterkes 9y ago
  Very modest
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- andai 9y ago
  I was told this was the reason people study math, and companies hire those people: "If you can get a degree in math, you prove yourself to be intelligent and hard working. Companies like those kind of people."
  - therealdrag0 9y ago
    Same with philosophy. My schools philosophy department had stats showing their students had higher writing scores than English students and didn't have significant unemployment (I forget what they compared employment to).

omegaham 9y ago

My favorite picture of this is Rob Gronkowski as a 12-year-old[1]. Getting into the NFL requires hard work, but it's not sufficient; without the genetic athleticism, you aren't getting in. [1] https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-at-12.jpg https://sportsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gronk-...