SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An interesting article about the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) program and their findings.
Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which would transform how gifted children are identified and supported by the US education system. As the longest-running current longitudinal survey of intellectually talented children, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the careers and accomplishments of some 5,000 individuals, many of whom have gone on to become high-achieving scientists. The study's ever-growing data set has generated more than 400 papers and several books, and provided key insights into how to spot and develop talent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and beyond.
With the first SMPY recruits now at the peak of their careers, what has become clear is how much the precociously gifted outweigh the rest of society in their influence. Many of the innovators who are advancing science, technology and culture are those whose unique cognitive abilities were identified and supported in their early years through enrichment programmes such as Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth—which Stanley began in the 1980s as an adjunct to SMPY. At the start, both the study and the centre were open to young adolescents who scored in the top 1% on university entrance exams.Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre.
[...] Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice—that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status. The research emphasizes the importance of nurturing precocious children, at a time when the prevailing focus in the United States and other countries is on improving the performance of struggling students. At the same time, the work to identify and support academically talented students has raised troubling questions about the risks of labelling children, and the shortfalls of talent searches and standardized tests as a means of identifying high-potential students, especially in poor and rural districts.
[...] Although gifted-education specialists herald the expansion of talent-development options in the United States, the benefits have mostly been limited so far to students who are at the top of both the talent and socio-economic curves.
[Also covered by]: NATURE
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:04AM
Did anyone *really* ever believe the "practice" theory over the inborn talent theory?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:08AM
Lamarckian evolutionists still believe the practice theory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:30AM
I don't think anyone believed you can get a Mozart or Einstein from lots of practice, but the average human can pretty easily reach top 10% in their field with enough effort.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by zugedneb on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:39AM
Some would say (including me) who have practiced some music, the Mozart is THE most algorithmic composer of them all.
It does not mean that it is not valuable, it just means that it is algorithmic; even I can mimic mozart.
As example, I could not mimic Yuki Kajiura...
Some others say, including me, that both Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci are focus points: they are people who are in such a social situation, that a lot of loose ends end up in their hands.
Further, some would say, that the face of Einstein could almost be considered as the principal component of a "true human face", and it would mean, amongst other things, that people would tell him things for free, that would take someone else considerable effort/cost.
Einstein, both in looks and in mannerism is a social hack.
I am not making an idiot out of him, I am just shining light on some aspects of reality that probabliy goes under racist nowdays...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:57AM
A similar talent, Charlie Parker, died at a similar age as Mozart (34 and 35). These men were clearly aware that their time was limited and they wanted to push out what they had as as fast as possible.
It's not true that they didn't evolve as musicians. Both did. But had they lived a few decades longer and had more of the ebbs and flow of life that the rest of us experience, then their art would have changed much more than it did.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:23AM
I read about Mozart that he was working as piano teacher, and was very bored with it, and it was so he started to write the large amount of piano concertos.
The very soothing quality in his music may come of him seeking relief from the "pain" of boredom...
Also, there is the observation, that at places, the piano has the melody of the tone of comforting speech...
Anyways, an other point I wanted to make is that when a position was open, either as a cantor at a cathedral or a professor, there were always people who could take it.
No church was ever closed cuz of lack of organists.
Statistically speaking, talent is nothing special or rare in people...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:59AM
Statistically speaking, talent is nothing special or rare in people...
Very true. However, you need to usually practice just to bring it out. Even Mozart didnt crack out his stuff without a bit of practice and screwups first. We get to see the survivors of everything he did. Everything else he discarded. That discard pile would probably make many people realize they could do better.
I was watching a recent video by NurdRage on youtube. All of his videos are of him doing things that work. Yet he has a PILE of junk that failed.
In most companies I work at I am probably one of the best SQL people they will ever have. Yet I failed most of my SQL classes. Failure is part of the path to success. If you dont do anything and never fail how can you know when you succeed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:40AM
Practice is really, really important. Native talent is important too, but I think the combination of enthusiasm and discipline atop of above average talent will beat clearly superior talent coupled with lack of discipline 9 times out of 10.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:22AM
Yeah, except that the real innovators aren't in your "1 in 10" or 10%. They are the 1 in 10,000 or rarer. < 0.01%. and at that extreme, hardworking, enthusiasm and discipline just won't cut it.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:40AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @11:30AM
Best example is Ramanujan - we wouldn't know of his existence if not for Hardy. And he was born to a caste that was supposed to be about knowledge etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:42PM
Take Bob Dylan. Was he a genius? I don't think so. What he had was an unbelievable passion for American blues and folk music from a young age, combined with self-confidence that he could make the material his own and present it to a wide audience. His knowledge was encyclopedic, he makes references to his predecessors in many songs. So that was a ton of practice combined with a belief in his own mission or destiny to be a great folk singer.
Later, of course, he discovered rock 'n roll.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:48PM
Yeah, except that the real innovators aren't in your "1 in 10" or 10%. They are the 1 in 10,000 or rarer. That's circular reasoning since you can't point to what makes a person a "real innovator" beforehand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @04:06AM
I've met plenty of people who are or were quantitatively smarter than me. They know more, think faster, score higher on tests, etc.
But, by quantitative, I mean they don't seem capable of things that I couldn't do if I put in the time and effort. I might be slower or need to focus more than them, but I could still do it.
I have also met a few rare people who I regard as qualitatively smarter than me. They get results and do things I couldn't even when they try to explain it. Sometimes I can understand what they have created, but there is no way in hell I could have done it myself. "Hardworking, enthusiasm and discipline" just wouldn't be enough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 10 2016, @09:39AM
I have also met a few rare people who I regard as qualitatively smarter than me. They get results and do things I couldn't even when they try to explain it. Sometimes I can understand what they have created, but there is no way in hell I could have done it myself. "Hardworking, enthusiasm and discipline" just wouldn't be enough.
And what makes you think you couldn't do the same to them in some other area? We've never been in a situation where someone could be the best in everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:30PM
Because I am talking about areas where I am good. Well above average, and these very few could still wipe the floor with me without trying.
If you've never met anyone that far ahead of you then you are either the most special snowflake ever, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kreuger effect
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @11:50AM
Rolling Stones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:08AM
> Did anyone *really* ever believe the "practice" theory over the inborn talent theory?
Inborn talent is the size of the glass.
Practice is what fills the glass.
A lazy genius is a glass mostly empty.
A hard working grinder is a glass mostly full.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:11AM
Yeah, but the no-talent grinders also tend to have oversized ambition, which can be pretty annoying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:36AM
Oh my! Life is so hard for you. People beneath you have the ambition to grind you down.
Sounds like you'd deserve it.