3 ms·

> So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else. This is the same kind o

> So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else. This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar. I realize this is the politically correct world view in many circles, but it’s simply not true. The variation in cognitive ability is enormous. You can ask yourself for example how many randomly selected people would you need to produce a score aver 200 on an IQ test, produce a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem or build something like the SpaceX Falcon. (Now that fact is not a justification for the enormous economic inequality we see on this planet. Neither is it proof that luck is not a major component in success.)

wklauss 7y ago
> how many randomly selected people would you need to produce a score aver 200 on an IQ test, produce a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem or build something like the SpaceX Falcon. It's been proven time and again that IQ numbers are more or less meaningless. Setting that aside, I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things, key word here being "potential", nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc...
- bjornsing 7y ago
  I agree IQ is largely meaningless, and I could have formulated my standpoint better, but... > I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things If it is then I'm quite sure this conclusion is in no way backed by the referenced scientific article. > nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc... It would be great if this was true, but it's just not. For example, I see myself as a few standard deviations out on the mathematical talent/ability scale, but I would not stand a chance against somebody like Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao. Why is it so important to pretend that it isn't so...?

wklauss 7y ago

> how many randomly selected people would you need to produce a score aver 200 on an IQ test, produce a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem or build something like the SpaceX Falcon. It's been proven time and again that IQ numbers are more or less meaningless. Setting that aside, I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things, key word here being "potential", nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc...

bjornsing 7y ago
I agree IQ is largely meaningless, and I could have formulated my standpoint better, but... > I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things If it is then I'm quite sure this conclusion is in no way backed by the referenced scientific article. > nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc... It would be great if this was true, but it's just not. For example, I see myself as a few standard deviations out on the mathematical talent/ability scale, but I would not stand a chance against somebody like Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao. Why is it so important to pretend that it isn't so...?