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?