alt Hacker News> 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 in school and they felt they only discovered by chance.
Starting from Descartes and his famous "method", continuing with Newton, Einstein, Grothendieck all these guys insisted that they were special because of this "attitude" and not because of what people call "intelligence". They viewed intelligence as a by-product of their method, not the other way around. They even wrote books as an attempt to share this method (which is quite hard to achieve, for reasons I explain in my book.)
Why do you bring "kids who fail in school" and "start selling drugs" into this conversation? What does it have to do with whether math genius is driven by genetics or idiosyncratic cognitive development?
And why would a mathematician be disqualified from discussing the specifics of math just because they're not hanging out with lost kids? Are you better qualified? Did you sequence the DNA of those kids and identified the genes responsible for their learning difficulties?
>> [they] don't think it's because of their genes
> Do you think someone would tell you, if he/she thought it was?
Well, an example I know quite well is mine. I was certainly "gifted" in math — something like in the top 1% of my generation, but not much above and definitely nowhere near the IMO gold medallists whom I met early in my studies.
A number of random events happened to me, including the chance discovery of certain ways to mentally engage with mathematical objects. This propelled me onto an entirely different trajectory, and I ended up solving tough conjectures & publishing in Inventiones & Annals of Math (an entirely different planet from the top 1% I started from)
My relative position wrt my peer group went through a series of well-delineated spikes from 17yo (when I started as an undergrad) to 35yo (when I quit academia), associated with specific methodological & psychological breakthroughs. I'm pretty confident that my genes stayed the same during this entire period.
And as to why I was initially "gifted", I do have some very plausible non-genetic factors that might be the explanation.
I don't claim this proves anything. But I see no reason why my account should be disqualified on the grounds that I'm good at math.
Usually, competency in one domain is presumed to make you a bit more qualified than the random person on the internet when it comes to explaining how this domain operates. Why should math be the exception?
> they do know something about math ... that it requires a certain "attitude"
Of course. That does not mean that intelligence doesn't play a (big) role.
> Starting from Descartes and his famous "method", continuing with Newton, Einstein, Grothendieck all these guys insisted that they were special because of this "attitude" and not because of what people call "intelligence"
That doesn't make sense. Back when they were active, intelligence, IQ tests and the heritability of intelligence hadn't been well studied. They didn't have enough information, like we do today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates "Various studies have estimated the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States."
And, evolution and genetics weren't these peolpe's domains. Does it make sense to assume they were authorities in genetics and inheritance, because were good at maths and physics?
Sometimes they were wrong about their own domains. Einstein did say "Genius is 1% talent and 99% hard work" (I can understand how it makes sense from his own perspective, although he didn't know enough about this animal species, to say that).
But he also said "God does not play dice" and was wrong about his own domain.
> Why do you bring "kids who fail in school" and "start selling drugs" into this conversation?
It was an example showing that the researchers live in bubbles.
That they're forming their believes about humans, based on small skewed samples of people. There's billions of people out there vastly different from themselves, whom they would have left out, if thinking about about others' abilities to learn.
In fact, now it seems to me that you too live in a bubble, I hope you don't mind.
> Usually, competency in one domain is presumed to make you a bit more qualified than the random person on the internet when it comes to explaining how this domain operates.
1) Maths and 2) evolution, DNA, genetics, intelligence, learning and inheritability are not the same domains.
Anyway, best wishes with the book and I hope it'll be helpful to people who want to study mathematics.