4 ms·

tl;dr: be homeschool, have academically well-connected parents And yes I am envious.

by tkahn6 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- mahyarm 15y ago
  More and more being smart and being really interested and motivated seem fairly co-related.
  - gnosis 15y ago
    They are related, but even being smart and having smart, dedicated parents isn't enough. You also need to be motivated and have staying power. I know so many smart, but unmotivated people who drift through life, rarely achieving anywhere near their potential. The same goes for people, like me, who get bored too quickly, and can't manage to stay dedicated to any one subject for long.
- Volpe 15y ago
  a large correlative indicator of academic success is the academic success of ones parents. Very difficult to measure 'innate smartness' (Is it even possible?)
  - HappyPerson 15y ago
    I can theorize one "sign" of innate smartness. When I was pregnant, my hands at one point in the pregnancy came to rest on my belly, and at some point, I happened to tap on my belly, and back came the same number of kicks or punches. I thought this had to have been coincidence, so tried a different number of taps, only to have that number tapped back, and so I tried a third number, which again came mirrored right back to me. It was at this point that I became freaked out and did my best to keep my hands off my belly for the remainder of the pregnancy. I have only heard of one other woman having this experience, and she told me her child is also one with a rather high IQ. Rolling over soon after birth might be another such indicator. Our son did this as a newborn and I've heard other mothers of high IQ children (not just one other, but several others) say their children did the same. One would think such a move would have more to do with muscle strength (and our son was born a typical 7 pounds and 6 ounces, so no football player baby) but perhaps it's more how quickly the mind can figure out how to pull off the turn, I don't know.
Tangaroa 15y ago
Having academically experienced parents is different enough from the status quo to merit mention. People who could hold a discussion on "Archimedes, Galileo, da Vinci, Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Pasteur, and Darwin" are rare. It's cliche to say that a child's success starts with the parents, but that's quite a positive influence there.
- eropple 15y ago
  I agree that having parents with a broad base of knowledge is a hugely positive influence--but I think you're misattributing the genesis of that base of knowledge when you refer to "academic experience". The rarity of those people, I think, is tied more towards (smart) people's willingness to over-focus. If, like a lot of computery folks I know, you choose to devote your time almost exclusively to computery stuff, you're going to be limited outside of that area--but you can choose not to do that. I found it fairly easy to avoid over-focus by seeking out new stuff to learn about. I'm 24, with a bachelor's in CS from a state school, and I went to a pretty normal high school; the works (and in most cases) lives of each of those people listed in your quote are pretty familiar to me, though some more than others, and I could recall offhand enough of substance to at least be able to hold my own in conversation. I think three things in particular helped me. I credit a lot of it to my dad taking away my computers when I screwed up as a kid. It forced me to entertain myself, and a lot of that was going to the library and reading everything I could get my hands on. Another factor was that (against my parents' advice) I explicitly refused to get a B.S. in CS in college. Instead, I took a B.A. so I could get out of the CS building more often. I hung out in the honors college of my school, which was heavily humanities-focused and where the students skewed towards the humanities and towards real engineering degrees (zero other CS students). I had to broaden my horizons just to keep up. The third helpful factor was that I started programming computers when I was about eight years old (I started in on C around 11 or 12), which provided much more to get good at what I do while still leaving a lot of time to follow up on other interests. (I am skeptical of unschooling largely due to what I see as the predilection of very smart people to hyper-focus--unless a child's parents are sharp and have a broad set of interests, the child seems incredibly likely to become one of these hyperfocused people. I can see it being really valuable and effective if parents have that baseline broad-scope curiosity.)
lutorm 15y ago
Those two are probably not uncorrelated either. For homeschooling to be good, you'd need parents who are sufficiently knowledgeable and well-rounded and have enough time to invest. (Though I get the impression that there are plenty of kids who are also homeschooled because their parents are determined to "save" them from things like learning about evolution.)
quinndupont 15y ago
And wealthy. Don't forget the wealth.
- calibraxis 15y ago
  Yes, with wealth you can work much less (if at all) and spend time with your child. Furthermore, wealthier parents have jobs which exercise their minds, so they're not deadened and just want to plop in front of the TV. Their managers are much more polite to them, so they're not so angry. Less financial woes means less family fights and likelihood of abuse. For a zillion reasons, I agree, and would never want to put a child through a family institution without sufficient wealth. Because in the world I live in, kinship and economic institutions are horrifically dysfunctional. Lucky people get to reach their potentials; most certainly don't. They go to schools whose interests are something other than supporting the child's personal interests. This dissident put it well: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbGHZuVsw0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbGHZuVsw0)

tl;dr: be homeschool, have academically well-connected parents And yes I am envious.

by tkahn6 15y ago

tl;dr: be homeschool, have academically well-connected parents And yes I am envious.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mahyarm 15y ago
More and more being smart and being really interested and motivated seem fairly co-related.
- gnosis 15y ago
  They are related, but even being smart and having smart, dedicated parents isn't enough. You also need to be motivated and have staying power. I know so many smart, but unmotivated people who drift through life, rarely achieving anywhere near their potential. The same goes for people, like me, who get bored too quickly, and can't manage to stay dedicated to any one subject for long.
Volpe 15y ago
a large correlative indicator of academic success is the academic success of ones parents. Very difficult to measure 'innate smartness' (Is it even possible?)
- HappyPerson 15y ago
  I can theorize one "sign" of innate smartness. When I was pregnant, my hands at one point in the pregnancy came to rest on my belly, and at some point, I happened to tap on my belly, and back came the same number of kicks or punches. I thought this had to have been coincidence, so tried a different number of taps, only to have that number tapped back, and so I tried a third number, which again came mirrored right back to me. It was at this point that I became freaked out and did my best to keep my hands off my belly for the remainder of the pregnancy. I have only heard of one other woman having this experience, and she told me her child is also one with a rather high IQ. Rolling over soon after birth might be another such indicator. Our son did this as a newborn and I've heard other mothers of high IQ children (not just one other, but several others) say their children did the same. One would think such a move would have more to do with muscle strength (and our son was born a typical 7 pounds and 6 ounces, so no football player baby) but perhaps it's more how quickly the mind can figure out how to pull off the turn, I don't know.

Tangaroa 15y ago

Having academically experienced parents is different enough from the status quo to merit mention. People who could hold a discussion on "Archimedes, Galileo, da Vinci, Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Pasteur, and Darwin" are rare. It's cliche to say that a child's success starts with the parents, but that's quite a positive influence there.

eropple 15y ago
I agree that having parents with a broad base of knowledge is a hugely positive influence--but I think you're misattributing the genesis of that base of knowledge when you refer to "academic experience". The rarity of those people, I think, is tied more towards (smart) people's willingness to over-focus. If, like a lot of computery folks I know, you choose to devote your time almost exclusively to computery stuff, you're going to be limited outside of that area--but you can choose not to do that. I found it fairly easy to avoid over-focus by seeking out new stuff to learn about. I'm 24, with a bachelor's in CS from a state school, and I went to a pretty normal high school; the works (and in most cases) lives of each of those people listed in your quote are pretty familiar to me, though some more than others, and I could recall offhand enough of substance to at least be able to hold my own in conversation. I think three things in particular helped me. I credit a lot of it to my dad taking away my computers when I screwed up as a kid. It forced me to entertain myself, and a lot of that was going to the library and reading everything I could get my hands on. Another factor was that (against my parents' advice) I explicitly refused to get a B.S. in CS in college. Instead, I took a B.A. so I could get out of the CS building more often. I hung out in the honors college of my school, which was heavily humanities-focused and where the students skewed towards the humanities and towards real engineering degrees (zero other CS students). I had to broaden my horizons just to keep up. The third helpful factor was that I started programming computers when I was about eight years old (I started in on C around 11 or 12), which provided much more to get good at what I do while still leaving a lot of time to follow up on other interests. (I am skeptical of unschooling largely due to what I see as the predilection of very smart people to hyper-focus--unless a child's parents are sharp and have a broad set of interests, the child seems incredibly likely to become one of these hyperfocused people. I can see it being really valuable and effective if parents have that baseline broad-scope curiosity.)

lutorm 15y ago

Those two are probably not uncorrelated either. For homeschooling to be good, you'd need parents who are sufficiently knowledgeable and well-rounded and have enough time to invest. (Though I get the impression that there are plenty of kids who are also homeschooled because their parents are determined to "save" them from things like learning about evolution.)

quinndupont 15y ago

And wealthy. Don't forget the wealth.

calibraxis 15y ago
Yes, with wealth you can work much less (if at all) and spend time with your child. Furthermore, wealthier parents have jobs which exercise their minds, so they're not deadened and just want to plop in front of the TV. Their managers are much more polite to them, so they're not so angry. Less financial woes means less family fights and likelihood of abuse. For a zillion reasons, I agree, and would never want to put a child through a family institution without sufficient wealth. Because in the world I live in, kinship and economic institutions are horrifically dysfunctional. Lucky people get to reach their potentials; most certainly don't. They go to schools whose interests are something other than supporting the child's personal interests. This dissident put it well: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbGHZuVsw0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbGHZuVsw0)