5 ms·

To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all. I d

To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all. I don't think this is true at all. People who are average intelligence or below can be very successful but have no chance of succeeding in high level intellectual pursuits. People who are smart don't understand this, because to them learning anything is just a matter of effort. I think there is truth in what you are saying, because at a certain level of intelligence, hard work and attitude become more of a bottleneck than ability. This is supported by facts as well, studies have found that success increases by IQ score, but levels off or drops at a certain point where brainpower is more of a handicap to mental health than a benefit.

TheSOB88 16y ago
What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.
  - btrask 16y ago
    You'd probably be better than most other basketball players. If you want to be the best in the world, it's true that factors outside of your control come into play. If you can "settle" for being in the top 10, top 100, or top 1000, instead of #1, you probably don't need much besides a lot of well-directed effort. In my experience.
    - lwat 16y ago
      Well if he's 5'9 he's not gonna make even the top 1000.
      - Dn_Ab 16y ago
        I am going to guess you have not heard of dunk contest winning NBA players Spud Webb (5'7) or Nate Robinson (5 '9) then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs
    - jhamburger 16y ago
      There's a guy who went to my college, Jared Jordan- Fairly nondescript athlete, 6'2 slow white guy. Basketball is basically his life, worked his ass off more than anyone and studied the game to the point where he knows it more than the coaches do. He was drafted in the 2nd round of the NBA draft a few years ago, never made any teams' roster. All the scouts said the same thing- absolutely no upside. Now he's playing in Europe. That is about the ceiling of what you can do without being 'gifted'.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. It gives us an excuse for why we don't.
    - mv 16y ago
      What I find odd is that most people want to believe everyone is born equal. They want to believe this so badly they ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example, I can eat anything and won't gain weight, yet someone else is morbidly obese on the same diet. I can glance at something once and memorize it easily whereas else may have to spend hours and hours. We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.
      - scott_s 16y ago
        I sincerely doubt that you are skinny on a diet that would make someone else morbidly obese [1]. What I think is more likely is that you eat as much as you want and are skinny. You're just lucky that, either through nature or nurture, what you want to eat, and the amount you want to eat, balances out with what your body needs. I agree that there are going to be variations in inherent intelligence, body composition, or even ability to play basketball. I just don't think it's as extreme as some people do, nor do I think it's enough to be the sole enabler of people who operate at the genius level in activities. [1] Assuming they don't have a hormonal problem, which are known to cause people on reasonable diets to become obese.
        cdavoren 16y ago
        This is backed up by medical knowledge. It has been repeatedly shown that metabolism varies very little between people when corrected for body mass. What does vary considerably is appetite, and this is the major contributor to body weight.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    How do you know that? Another case in point: taxi drivers apparently have growing brain regions for geographic stuff (learning their city by heart). I guess you wouldn't expect most taxi drivers to have above average intelligence, but if you tested their geographic "senses", they might register as geniuses. But they also probably didn't become taxi drivers because of their talent - it developed by them being taxi drivers.
    - westicle 16y ago
      At the risk of both taking a cheap shot and perpetuating an industry stereotype, I haven't encountered too many geographically genius-level taxi drivers in my city. I'm just happy if they have a GPS navigation system and can vaguely understand the directions issued from same.
      - wtallis 16y ago
        You probably don't live in London, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#... When taxi drivers are required to demonstrate a deep knowledge of the geography of their area and are not allowed to rely on maps or GPS navigation systems in order to be certified, you end up with taxi drivers that are very good at navigating the city.
        ori_b 16y ago
        Now, you're adding a very strong element of filtering to the process, and you can't really make any statements about how big of a component of the ability to navigate is learned.
  - aik 16y ago
    Supposedly most super successful sports stars weren't the best when they were 12 years old (or however young). Most of the ones that rose to the very top were average or above average early in their lives, but through an unusual amount of determination, focus, and time, they rose to the top.
  - Dn_Ab 16y ago
    Not a given. This will depend on how directed your training was and how good Lebron James was at 12 and how long he had been playing at that point. Getting good at something is like any other type of optimization, getting that final bit of performance takes an inordinate amount of work. [EDIT I took it upon myself to skim a bio. Sure Lebron had talent but he owes a lot to his coaches who took a special interest in him as a youth] Most people can get within less than 2 seconds of Usain Bolt's best time. Going beyond that you run into a sheer cliff face. For athletes those fractions of a second is where biology starts to make a difference, the vast majority of differences in skill however, can be found in hard work. Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- NinetyNine 16y ago
  The purpose of treating everyone as if they had equal intelligence is not a rigorous scientific pursuit, it's about creating an environment most encouraging to learning and problem solving. Engineers are much more motivated to tackle hard problems and even work together if they believe that they can adapt to each others' differences.
nbashaw 16y ago
I don't think IQ has much to do with success. I've met a lot of brilliant people who can't finish projects, speak up, know when to back down, etc. I think success is more about discipline, moral courage, and hard work than it is about how smart you are.
danbmil99 16y ago
I think at the upper levels of intelligence, you are talking about the engineering limits of the brain as a physical thinking machine. Everything is working as well as it can; in this case, I suspect the difference between the top 100th percentile and the top 10th is not all that great. That's not to say there isn't a competitive advantage, just that it levels off, like it does in athletics.

TheSOB88 16y ago

What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.

jhamburger 16y ago
That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.
- btrask 16y ago
  You'd probably be better than most other basketball players. If you want to be the best in the world, it's true that factors outside of your control come into play. If you can "settle" for being in the top 10, top 100, or top 1000, instead of #1, you probably don't need much besides a lot of well-directed effort. In my experience.
  - lwat 16y ago
    Well if he's 5'9 he's not gonna make even the top 1000.
    - Dn_Ab 16y ago
      I am going to guess you have not heard of dunk contest winning NBA players Spud Webb (5'7) or Nate Robinson (5 '9) then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    There's a guy who went to my college, Jared Jordan- Fairly nondescript athlete, 6'2 slow white guy. Basketball is basically his life, worked his ass off more than anyone and studied the game to the point where he knows it more than the coaches do. He was drafted in the 2nd round of the NBA draft a few years ago, never made any teams' roster. All the scouts said the same thing- absolutely no upside. Now he's playing in Europe. That is about the ceiling of what you can do without being 'gifted'.
- scott_s 16y ago
  This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147 I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. It gives us an excuse for why we don't.
  - mv 16y ago
    What I find odd is that most people want to believe everyone is born equal. They want to believe this so badly they ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example, I can eat anything and won't gain weight, yet someone else is morbidly obese on the same diet. I can glance at something once and memorize it easily whereas else may have to spend hours and hours. We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      I sincerely doubt that you are skinny on a diet that would make someone else morbidly obese [1]. What I think is more likely is that you eat as much as you want and are skinny. You're just lucky that, either through nature or nurture, what you want to eat, and the amount you want to eat, balances out with what your body needs. I agree that there are going to be variations in inherent intelligence, body composition, or even ability to play basketball. I just don't think it's as extreme as some people do, nor do I think it's enough to be the sole enabler of people who operate at the genius level in activities. [1] Assuming they don't have a hormonal problem, which are known to cause people on reasonable diets to become obese.
      - cdavoren 16y ago
        This is backed up by medical knowledge. It has been repeatedly shown that metabolism varies very little between people when corrected for body mass. What does vary considerably is appetite, and this is the major contributor to body weight.
- Tichy 16y ago
  How do you know that? Another case in point: taxi drivers apparently have growing brain regions for geographic stuff (learning their city by heart). I guess you wouldn't expect most taxi drivers to have above average intelligence, but if you tested their geographic "senses", they might register as geniuses. But they also probably didn't become taxi drivers because of their talent - it developed by them being taxi drivers.
  - westicle 16y ago
    At the risk of both taking a cheap shot and perpetuating an industry stereotype, I haven't encountered too many geographically genius-level taxi drivers in my city. I'm just happy if they have a GPS navigation system and can vaguely understand the directions issued from same.
    - wtallis 16y ago
      You probably don't live in London, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#... When taxi drivers are required to demonstrate a deep knowledge of the geography of their area and are not allowed to rely on maps or GPS navigation systems in order to be certified, you end up with taxi drivers that are very good at navigating the city.
      - ori_b 16y ago
        Now, you're adding a very strong element of filtering to the process, and you can't really make any statements about how big of a component of the ability to navigate is learned.
- aik 16y ago
  Supposedly most super successful sports stars weren't the best when they were 12 years old (or however young). Most of the ones that rose to the very top were average or above average early in their lives, but through an unusual amount of determination, focus, and time, they rose to the top.
- Dn_Ab 16y ago
  Not a given. This will depend on how directed your training was and how good Lebron James was at 12 and how long he had been playing at that point. Getting good at something is like any other type of optimization, getting that final bit of performance takes an inordinate amount of work. [EDIT I took it upon myself to skim a bio. Sure Lebron had talent but he owes a lot to his coaches who took a special interest in him as a youth] Most people can get within less than 2 seconds of Usain Bolt's best time. Going beyond that you run into a sheer cliff face. For athletes those fractions of a second is where biology starts to make a difference, the vast majority of differences in skill however, can be found in hard work. Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
NinetyNine 16y ago
The purpose of treating everyone as if they had equal intelligence is not a rigorous scientific pursuit, it's about creating an environment most encouraging to learning and problem solving. Engineers are much more motivated to tackle hard problems and even work together if they believe that they can adapt to each others' differences.

nbashaw 16y ago

I don't think IQ has much to do with success. I've met a lot of brilliant people who can't finish projects, speak up, know when to back down, etc. I think success is more about discipline, moral courage, and hard work than it is about how smart you are.

danbmil99 16y ago

I think at the upper levels of intelligence, you are talking about the engineering limits of the brain as a physical thinking machine. Everything is working as well as it can; in this case, I suspect the difference between the top 100th percentile and the top 10th is not all that great. That's not to say there isn't a competitive advantage, just that it levels off, like it does in athletics.