4 ms·

Most people that attend IMO are prodigies but generally, sociable. I met many of them and they just love math.

by foobaw 7y ago

andbberger 7y ago
> Most people that attend IMO are prodigies Can we all agree to never use that word? Actual prodigies are measure zero in the general population. Terry Tao is a prodigy. The rest of us are just normal schmucks. Prodigy suggests that talent comes naturally to and is dismissive of the massive amount of work that goes into preparing for something like the IMO.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Talent does come naturally to them. Instead of arguing about labels, it's better to think about talent quantitatively. If the USA's IMO contestants were generally slackers, they'd still be comfortably in the top 100 in their birth year (in the entire country) in the AMC/AIME combined score, just by showing up when the teacher told them to. (Well, back in the early 2000's. Maybe competition is stiffer nowadays.) And the gulf in talent between them and the worst kids in that top 100 list is large.
  - andbberger 7y ago
    Why do you have to think about talent at all? Who is them??
  - googthwy123 7y ago
    I didn't end up doing IMO due to weird school situations, but I'd won some prestigious math competitions (two other winners I befriended one year went on to become IMO gold medalists) and was able to solve some IMO problems in middle school on my own. At the time I felt I was just different from others in terms of mathematical ability. My general feeling now is that talent as perceived by others is mostly a function of hard work. Looking back, the level of persistence I was able to apply to mathematical problems at such an early age without any real supervision was incredible. I was almost entirely self-taught from age 7-10 and without being on a strict curriculum, this included some college level math. I think this was a function of a lot of things that don't have much to do with natural ability.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      At least a few IMO gold medalists have younger brothers who are good enough to be involved in math activities in high school but are not remotely close to the same level. They are in fact different in terms of mathematical ability. You would be more aware of the value of natural ability if you had put work in, but then couldn't come close to winning prestigious math competitions.
      - googthwy123 7y ago
        My own brother was exactly that way (good enough to be one of the best in school and hold his own at an elite university, but not close to good enough for any kind of actual competition) but my understanding is that he was only ever trying, never doing. There's a huge difference between learning something because some external pressure dictates that you learn it and truly immersing yourself in something and just letting go. Math isn't that exciting for most people, so the vast majority of people never cross over to the latter. So the extremely small percentage of people that are able to cross the chasm and deal with math natively can stand out.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        I agree with what you're saying in general. I don't know whether you really quantitatively disagree with me. I think without any deep immersion like you describe, the IMO team members would still have done well enough on the AMC/AIME to qualify for the USAMO. Do you disagree with that? (Again, my difficulty scale is based off the early 2000's.) I mean, my basis for that estimate is that I know a bunch of people without such immersion who got that far when I was a kid, who were on the regular school education track, didn't self-educate outside that, and didn't have much external pressure either. Edit: But I don't mean to imply these people absolutely never thought about math or numbers outside of the classroom, because it's interesting, and they most certainly did, just no traversal through a curriculum, or deep immersion.
        googthwy123 7y ago
- lacker 7y ago
  As someone who attended the IMO, I can tell you it varies widely. For some people, they screw around a lot, attend math camp but spend a lot of time playing games, dick around doing normal teenager things, get in trouble for stupid teenager things, don't study too hard, and nevertheless do well enough to attend the IMO. And then some people are responsible, study a lot, work hard, keep their heads down, and also attend the IMO.

Most people that attend IMO are prodigies but generally, sociable. I met many of them and they just love math.

by foobaw 7y ago

Most people that attend IMO are prodigies but generally, sociable. I met many of them and they just love math.

> Most people that attend IMO are prodigies Can we all agree to never use that word? Actual prodigies are measure zero in the general population. Terry Tao is a prodigy. The rest of us are just normal schmucks. Prodigy suggests that talent comes naturally to and is dismissive of the massive amount of work that goes into preparing for something like the IMO.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
Talent does come naturally to them. Instead of arguing about labels, it's better to think about talent quantitatively. If the USA's IMO contestants were generally slackers, they'd still be comfortably in the top 100 in their birth year (in the entire country) in the AMC/AIME combined score, just by showing up when the teacher told them to. (Well, back in the early 2000's. Maybe competition is stiffer nowadays.) And the gulf in talent between them and the worst kids in that top 100 list is large.
- andbberger 7y ago
  Why do you have to think about talent at all? Who is them??
- googthwy123 7y ago
  I didn't end up doing IMO due to weird school situations, but I'd won some prestigious math competitions (two other winners I befriended one year went on to become IMO gold medalists) and was able to solve some IMO problems in middle school on my own. At the time I felt I was just different from others in terms of mathematical ability. My general feeling now is that talent as perceived by others is mostly a function of hard work. Looking back, the level of persistence I was able to apply to mathematical problems at such an early age without any real supervision was incredible. I was almost entirely self-taught from age 7-10 and without being on a strict curriculum, this included some college level math. I think this was a function of a lot of things that don't have much to do with natural ability.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    At least a few IMO gold medalists have younger brothers who are good enough to be involved in math activities in high school but are not remotely close to the same level. They are in fact different in terms of mathematical ability. You would be more aware of the value of natural ability if you had put work in, but then couldn't come close to winning prestigious math competitions.
    - googthwy123 7y ago
      My own brother was exactly that way (good enough to be one of the best in school and hold his own at an elite university, but not close to good enough for any kind of actual competition) but my understanding is that he was only ever trying, never doing. There's a huge difference between learning something because some external pressure dictates that you learn it and truly immersing yourself in something and just letting go. Math isn't that exciting for most people, so the vast majority of people never cross over to the latter. So the extremely small percentage of people that are able to cross the chasm and deal with math natively can stand out.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        I agree with what you're saying in general. I don't know whether you really quantitatively disagree with me. I think without any deep immersion like you describe, the IMO team members would still have done well enough on the AMC/AIME to qualify for the USAMO. Do you disagree with that? (Again, my difficulty scale is based off the early 2000's.) I mean, my basis for that estimate is that I know a bunch of people without such immersion who got that far when I was a kid, who were on the regular school education track, didn't self-educate outside that, and didn't have much external pressure either. Edit: But I don't mean to imply these people absolutely never thought about math or numbers outside of the classroom, because it's interesting, and they most certainly did, just no traversal through a curriculum, or deep immersion.
        googthwy123 7y ago
lacker 7y ago
As someone who attended the IMO, I can tell you it varies widely. For some people, they screw around a lot, attend math camp but spend a lot of time playing games, dick around doing normal teenager things, get in trouble for stupid teenager things, don't study too hard, and nevertheless do well enough to attend the IMO. And then some people are responsible, study a lot, work hard, keep their heads down, and also attend the IMO.