5 ms·

Richard Feynman might disagree. https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw

by willis936 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago
his humbleness is why he's so popular. But you don't win Putnam by studying. you got to be really brilliant too.
- willis936 5y ago
  Well if you consider him brilliant then perhaps you would believe him when he says that talent isn't nearly as important as studying.
  - solveit 5y ago
    Lots of people study really hard. Few go on to become Feynman.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      Plenty of people are also brilliant and don't go on to become Feynman.
    - Shugarl 5y ago
      "Study" is also a pretty vague word, that could describe a lot of different activities. Lots of people study hard, buy how many follows the exact same process as Feynman ? Not every studying techniques are equally effective, the same is true for problem solving techniques. Not to say his genetics didn't have _any_ impact, but we don't know the extent of the impact it had
- harry8 5y ago
  You don't actually know this. I acknowledge it might be true but it also might not. How do you know what you're calling brilliance isn't a different kind of study, for example? Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life from a very early age and sought them out. With his local reputation among family, friends, school others brought them to him as well. He did inter-school stand-up math competitions, if I remember that story correctly, and described how he learned to "relax into the solution" not try to force it but look at it in a different way until it just all falls out and so on. Then he also studied math and then won the Putnum. How would he have gone without doing all that "non-study" about problem solving and looking at problems from different ways and just doing math quite well? Maybe he was so brilliant he still would have won? I suspect not. How many others sitting for the Putnum had done similar amounts of the same quality work by way of preparation? Genius? Or learned and honed? Both? In what proportions? Whatever I think about it is "Just like my opinion, man." Right?
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    > Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life Yes, you tend to get good at what gives you a buzz, in a compounding way. But I expect 'buzz' isn't random, either: it'd make sense for personality formation to notice when you show talent at something valued by some of the people around you, and flip some motivational switches in your developing mind. This seems like a better bet for your genes than trying to engineer your motivation and talent towards a common target separately.
  - throwaway9278 5y ago
    No. We do know this. We know cognitive ability varies between people. It's obvious to everyone who's competed with others in mental competitions, and it's born out by a century of psychological research. You can't just train to win the Putnam if you don't have the talents. Have you ever sat and worked problems with someone exceptional in that area? Try it if you get the chance. The variation in ability will blow you away.
    - posed 5y ago
      Disagreed. Look at the Polgar sisters for example.
felix318 5y ago
I didn’t believe in talent until after I spent over ten years trying to learn music, and then seeing 5 year-olds on YouTube doing stuff I can only dream of. True, some, perhaps most of it is hard work, but talent makes the process a lot easier.
- dominotw 5y ago
  easier to learn as a kid
- v-erne 5y ago
  I suspect that there is some overgeneralization going on with the term "talent". We see something that is hard for us and we immediately throw it in the same bag. Even if there can be some better explanation. There is a lot of micro abilities that goes into any complex thing and if You skip on any of is it can change things from easy to impossible. Just look at any disabled person - and compare how hard is for them to do easy things - I believe that the same is going on with Your comparison to talented people - You just do not see those micro abilities that are compounded to create illusion of talent.
  - hatmatrix 5y ago
    I think "talent" can be interpreted as being the amalgamation of those relevant microabilities. But in addition to innate talent, there is luck as well - besides being lucky enough to have been born into the first world, I think connecting with the right teacher or the right material that speaks to the way you learn makes a big difference.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Try any sport and see how some new people come in and start at a level that others won’t achieve even after years. This makes you believe in talent quickly. With physical abilities this is more accepted but I don’t see a reason why mental capabilities would be any different. Some people just have more powerful brains by birth. You can achieve a lot by exercise and discipline but some people can achieve higher levels than others.

Richard Feynman might disagree. https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw

paulpauper 5y ago

his humbleness is why he's so popular. But you don't win Putnam by studying. you got to be really brilliant too.

willis936 5y ago
Well if you consider him brilliant then perhaps you would believe him when he says that talent isn't nearly as important as studying.
- solveit 5y ago
  Lots of people study really hard. Few go on to become Feynman.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Plenty of people are also brilliant and don't go on to become Feynman.
  - Shugarl 5y ago
    "Study" is also a pretty vague word, that could describe a lot of different activities. Lots of people study hard, buy how many follows the exact same process as Feynman ? Not every studying techniques are equally effective, the same is true for problem solving techniques. Not to say his genetics didn't have _any_ impact, but we don't know the extent of the impact it had
harry8 5y ago
You don't actually know this. I acknowledge it might be true but it also might not. How do you know what you're calling brilliance isn't a different kind of study, for example? Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life from a very early age and sought them out. With his local reputation among family, friends, school others brought them to him as well. He did inter-school stand-up math competitions, if I remember that story correctly, and described how he learned to "relax into the solution" not try to force it but look at it in a different way until it just all falls out and so on. Then he also studied math and then won the Putnum. How would he have gone without doing all that "non-study" about problem solving and looking at problems from different ways and just doing math quite well? Maybe he was so brilliant he still would have won? I suspect not. How many others sitting for the Putnum had done similar amounts of the same quality work by way of preparation? Genius? Or learned and honed? Both? In what proportions? Whatever I think about it is "Just like my opinion, man." Right?
- abecedarius 5y ago
  > Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life Yes, you tend to get good at what gives you a buzz, in a compounding way. But I expect 'buzz' isn't random, either: it'd make sense for personality formation to notice when you show talent at something valued by some of the people around you, and flip some motivational switches in your developing mind. This seems like a better bet for your genes than trying to engineer your motivation and talent towards a common target separately.
- throwaway9278 5y ago
  No. We do know this. We know cognitive ability varies between people. It's obvious to everyone who's competed with others in mental competitions, and it's born out by a century of psychological research. You can't just train to win the Putnam if you don't have the talents. Have you ever sat and worked problems with someone exceptional in that area? Try it if you get the chance. The variation in ability will blow you away.
  - posed 5y ago
    Disagreed. Look at the Polgar sisters for example.

felix318 5y ago

I didn’t believe in talent until after I spent over ten years trying to learn music, and then seeing 5 year-olds on YouTube doing stuff I can only dream of. True, some, perhaps most of it is hard work, but talent makes the process a lot easier.

dominotw 5y ago
easier to learn as a kid
v-erne 5y ago
I suspect that there is some overgeneralization going on with the term "talent". We see something that is hard for us and we immediately throw it in the same bag. Even if there can be some better explanation. There is a lot of micro abilities that goes into any complex thing and if You skip on any of is it can change things from easy to impossible. Just look at any disabled person - and compare how hard is for them to do easy things - I believe that the same is going on with Your comparison to talented people - You just do not see those micro abilities that are compounded to create illusion of talent.
- hatmatrix 5y ago
  I think "talent" can be interpreted as being the amalgamation of those relevant microabilities. But in addition to innate talent, there is luck as well - besides being lucky enough to have been born into the first world, I think connecting with the right teacher or the right material that speaks to the way you learn makes a big difference.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
Try any sport and see how some new people come in and start at a level that others won’t achieve even after years. This makes you believe in talent quickly. With physical abilities this is more accepted but I don’t see a reason why mental capabilities would be any different. Some people just have more powerful brains by birth. You can achieve a lot by exercise and discipline but some people can achieve higher levels than others.