davidbessis

5 ms·

1.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
Of course IQ is heritable to a certain degree. Why do you pretend to see blank slatism where there is none?
2.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
What you call name-dropping is justified by the need to clarify the stakes and be transparent about where the criticism is coming from. If the article is too long for you & you're already familiar with the notion of heritability, y
3.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
No-one is denying heritability here. The only question is where the heritability figure lies, and how reliable are the estimates that have been put forward in the past. I don't see how anyone's "personal experience" coul
4.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
As for this snide comment that you posted behind your flagged comment: "I don't care if you find it fair. If you can't accept that genetics determines the entire organism (stress: entire) and does not stop at the neck, then y
5.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
For full clarity: I didn't flag your comment (at least, not intentionally, as I never even thought about doing that) Now the substance: "The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”."
6.
by davidbessis 10mo ago
Which exact passage of my piece triggered this bizarre interpretation? What made you jump from "someone criticizes a 1990 paper in Science for withholding critical control group data" to "this person is subject to magical thi
7.
by davidbessis 2y ago
Great to see you're making progress! A few posts ago you were alluding to heritability in the 0.7-0.8 range, as a reason to dismiss the writings of Einstein, Newton, Descartes and Grothendieck. Now you're at 0.44. If you discount
8.
by davidbessis 2y ago
I was alluding to the quote relevant to the current debate: "Genius is 1% talent and 99% hard work" — which you incorrectly attributed to Einstein.
9.
by davidbessis 2y ago
Dear cutemonster, I know this reply may not suffice to convince you, but unfortunately I won't be able to argue forever. Did you ever consider the possibility that you might be the one living in a bubble? FYI, the concept of innate tal
10.
by davidbessis 2y ago
> Sounds like people mostly living in different bubbles? What do they know about the world? Well, they do know something about math — in particular that it requires a certain "attitude", something that no-one told them about
11.
by davidbessis 2y ago
Indeed, it does involve redefining genius as a "state", or "flow", or "trajectory". When I say it's not primarily genetic, many people wrongly assume there's an entirely explainable and replicable way
12.
by davidbessis 2y ago
I think you really are confused. You are mistakenly equating "non-primarily genetic" with "easily teachable". The story is much more complex than "if it's not genetic then everybody should get it". It&#x27
13.
by davidbessis 2y ago
Great to see so many reactions to my interview, thanks! I see that many people are confused by the interview's title, and also by my take that math talent isn't primarily a matter of genes. It may sound like naive egalitarianism,
14.
by davidbessis 2y ago
I'm the author of what you've just described as clickbait. Interestingly, the 100m metaphor is extensively discussed in my book, where I explain why it should rather lead to the exact opposite of your conclusion. The situation w