alt Hacker NewsGreat 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 for a mild EEA violation correction, you'd easily get to 0.3 or below — a figure which I personally find believable.
Just FYI, I don't belong to any "camp". These aren't camps but techniques and models. Intra-family GWAS provide underestimated lower bounds, twin studies provide wildly overestimated upper bounds. I don't care about the exact value, as long at it doesn't serve as a distraction from the (much more interesting!) story of how one can develop one's ability for mathematics.
In any case, IQ is a pretty boring construct, especially on the higher end where it's clearly uncalibrated. And it's a deep misunderstanding of mathematics to overestimate the role of "computational ability / short term memory / whatever" vs the particular psychological attitude and mental actions that are key to becoming better at math.
Now that the smoke screen has evaporated, can we please return to the main topic?
Thanks!
> 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.
No. This is what I wrote:
"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: ... twin studies ..."
And now that changes to: "like we do today: ... GWAS (and twin studies) ...". The precise numbers were not the point.
> you'd easily get to 0.3 or below — a figure which I personally find believable
That's interesting. I thought you were closer to zero. Well, 0.3 or 0.7 or 0.2 -- it's a little bit all the same to me, as long as it's not 0 or 0.0001.
> I don't care about the exact value
Ok, makes sense :-)
> as long at it doesn't serve as a distraction
Aha, so that's why you didn't like 0.7 or 0.8 and reacted to it. Yes that's maybe a bit depressingly high numbers, in a way.
And I don't like 0 or close to 0 because that'd indicate that this animal species was "stuck".
> ... how one can develop one's ability for mathematics ... psychological attitude and mental actions that are key to becoming better at math
Yes, to becoming better. If you have time, I wonder what's the level of maths you think most people on the planet can reach? If everyone had the right encouragement, time and attitude.
- High school maths in economy and finance programs? (needed for example for accounting and running one's own business)
- The most advanced maths classes in high school if you study natural sciences?
- Technical mathematics or theoretical physics a few years at university?
- General theory of relativity?
I'm wondering if you're saying that just as long as someone starts early enough, they can reach the highest levels?
But then what about today's topic:
California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42247334
Is it just that they started earlier and have the right attitude?