4 ms·

I suppose comments like this are what got the author to write the blog post. Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential

I suppose comments like this are what got the author to write the blog post. Genetics also matter and we as a society should make sure we foster the potential of people like the 10X scientist. I have a great memory - my brother however, has an encyclopedic memory. He doesn't forget things that he reads. I will never be like, regardless of my environment. But most people aren't in the 99th percentile of genetics so emphasizing the fact that most innovations do come from collaboration is helpful for society. However, we should still emphasis that there truly are some "rockstars" out there and make sure their environment matches up to their genetics.

ryder9 5y ago
another day on hackernews and someone unironically arguing for eugenics
bcrosby95 5y ago
I'm not sure we have the ability to identify the rockstars except in hindsight.
- tux3 5y ago
  Do we have any reason to believe that, much to my distaste, IQ is not the metric you want, being correlated with all the outcomes you'd expect in future 'rockstars'? I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
  - username90 5y ago
    IQ is one thing, but I've found that IQ doesn't seem to correlate with creativity at all. Creativity as in "the ability to come up with novel useful ideas", not the bad definition psychology uses "the ability to come up with lots of crap ideas". Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
    - Ankintol 5y ago
      I'd encourage you to look into Cognitive Load Theory[0]. A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills. e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired. This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer. I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-Performance-Technologies/dp/144198125X https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...
falsaberN1 5y ago
I honestly don't like this line of thought. I got nothing against you personally, just against the general idea, which I also see expressed as "natural talent". Let me explain. I have had a pretty tough life, never had much of a privileged situation, but I achieved things people express jealousy over very frequently, and it's often attributed to "being a genius" instead of the actual effort and sacrifices it took. That line of thought reduces all the effort me and others had to go through to "luck". It wasn't us, it was the genes that helped us out. It's dehumanizing the person and their achievements and reducing them to a perceived "luck of the draw" that maybe if you examine the case in detail you might find out there's no luck at all in there. It was our own choices and priorities what got us somewhere, not some funky "luck". This works both ways too. How do you encourage someone that is sad because they can't do the things you can do? You can't precisely tell them "if you weren't playing videogames all day you could also learn these things" without looking like a complete asshole. I wish this "genetic superiority" argument just vanished so we can let people's decisions and efforts shine through. Similarly, people assumes you don't need help ever because "you are a genius", you can figure it out. My genes aren't even that good. I got a genetic syndrome that will cut my life short anytime just like it did to my only brother. I really don't want to hear how lucky I am for my genetics, it just makes me furious when I remember medical science has told me I am living on borrowed time and I just came out of a close call from gangrene due to tissues tearing up randomly. You can probably understand why I think this myth, in regards to "things you can do in life" really upsets me. I've witnessed people with Down's syndrome learn things an Average Joe considers difficult, and according to that myth that should be impossible, all because they really wanted to do the thing. Again, I'm not attacking you and I'm positive you don't have any bad intent in your belief, but you can probably see why I'd disagree with the notion. It's troubling, really, and it diminishes accomplishments done voluntarily to luck. Genetics don't give you desire or the ability to compromise, that's all on the personality, and people needs to see this. There would be way less people beating themselves down over not being a genius and they would instead see that they can't rise as high because they aren't really willing. But you can change that, unlike your genes. By removing that mental lock that makes people believe they don't have what it takes, I'm sure more people would accept their shortcomings and improve on them, instead of leaving it as some hypothetical act of God they cannot possibly overcome.

ryder9 5y ago

another day on hackernews and someone unironically arguing for eugenics

bcrosby95 5y ago

I'm not sure we have the ability to identify the rockstars except in hindsight.

tux3 5y ago
Do we have any reason to believe that, much to my distaste, IQ is not the metric you want, being correlated with all the outcomes you'd expect in future 'rockstars'? I think it takes more than IQ to make a profound discovery (c.f. the remark about talent lost to sweatshops), but that doesn't make the unlucky person not a genius. Just an unrealized one.
- username90 5y ago
  IQ is one thing, but I've found that IQ doesn't seem to correlate with creativity at all. Creativity as in "the ability to come up with novel useful ideas", not the bad definition psychology uses "the ability to come up with lots of crap ideas". Not sure if we actually have a test for creativity, but it seems like some people have a very good ability to see what is useful and where to put their effort. And some people with very good IQ scores are really bad at it. They can solve math equations really well, but when it comes to discovering new useful math they are completely lost since they don't have the creativity to understand what new things are actually interesting.
  - Ankintol 5y ago
    I'd encourage you to look into Cognitive Load Theory[0]. A key finding is that people are not creative generally but are instead creative relative to their skills. e.g. if you are not a skilled programmer your programming is very unlikely to be creative except insofar as it relates to a non-programming skill that you have acquired. This suggests that most creative solutions will come from people who learn many things. You'd expect people with high IQ and conscientiousness (implies being organized and driven) to be the most creative group. This lines up with the best evidence I've found, and anecdotally matched my experiences as an educator and continues to as a software developer. I think this may also explain your own experiences. The model predicts that a smart person who learns a lot less about a topic than their less smart peer would be less creative thinking the topic. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-Performance-Technologies/dp/144198125X https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-...

falsaberN1 5y ago

I honestly don't like this line of thought. I got nothing against you personally, just against the general idea, which I also see expressed as "natural talent". Let me explain. I have had a pretty tough life, never had much of a privileged situation, but I achieved things people express jealousy over very frequently, and it's often attributed to "being a genius" instead of the actual effort and sacrifices it took. That line of thought reduces all the effort me and others had to go through to "luck". It wasn't us, it was the genes that helped us out. It's dehumanizing the person and their achievements and reducing them to a perceived "luck of the draw" that maybe if you examine the case in detail you might find out there's no luck at all in there. It was our own choices and priorities what got us somewhere, not some funky "luck". This works both ways too. How do you encourage someone that is sad because they can't do the things you can do? You can't precisely tell them "if you weren't playing videogames all day you could also learn these things" without looking like a complete asshole. I wish this "genetic superiority" argument just vanished so we can let people's decisions and efforts shine through. Similarly, people assumes you don't need help ever because "you are a genius", you can figure it out. My genes aren't even that good. I got a genetic syndrome that will cut my life short anytime just like it did to my only brother. I really don't want to hear how lucky I am for my genetics, it just makes me furious when I remember medical science has told me I am living on borrowed time and I just came out of a close call from gangrene due to tissues tearing up randomly. You can probably understand why I think this myth, in regards to "things you can do in life" really upsets me. I've witnessed people with Down's syndrome learn things an Average Joe considers difficult, and according to that myth that should be impossible, all because they really wanted to do the thing. Again, I'm not attacking you and I'm positive you don't have any bad intent in your belief, but you can probably see why I'd disagree with the notion. It's troubling, really, and it diminishes accomplishments done voluntarily to luck. Genetics don't give you desire or the ability to compromise, that's all on the personality, and people needs to see this. There would be way less people beating themselves down over not being a genius and they would instead see that they can't rise as high because they aren't really willing. But you can change that, unlike your genes. By removing that mental lock that makes people believe they don't have what it takes, I'm sure more people would accept their shortcomings and improve on them, instead of leaving it as some hypothetical act of God they cannot possibly overcome.