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, Offtopic) by mendax on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:24AM
Indeed! I've never had my IQ measured, although my third-grade teacher estimated it to be in the 140's, while a friend of mine who is highly intelligent puts it in the genius range, so I guess I can say I'm up there in the higher percentile. I have little patience for ignorance and stupidity. Most of my friends are near geniuses, nearly all have university degrees or are so smart they got programming jobs without a degree, yet one of them is a homeless drop-out, another is on disability because of mental illness. I can't say I'm very popular among others because I have little patience for ignorance and stupidity, something that appears to be in vogue in today's political climate (e.g., Donald Trump and his ilk who support him).
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:21AM
"I have little patience for ignorance and stupidity."
"I can't say I'm very popular among others because I have little patience for ignorance and stupidity"
I have little patience for impatient people - excluding myself, of course - who always repeat themselves redundantly sometimes.
You seem to be unwisely conflating all forms of intelligence with the types of intelligence you are personally familiar with.
Donald Trump may be appealing to fools by speaking our language, but even a fool like me can see that one doesn't need to be a genius to be an effective leader. Most often, it would be counterproductive as patience is something a good leader absolutely needs.
More importantly, no matter how smart you think you are, you're never going to get anything done without a legion of idiots to take care of all the busy-work for you. Realize your place in the scheme of things. Plumbers, machinists, and electricians built the LHC, and leaders led them as they worked.
Ruminate on what Donald Trump's goals are, who he needs to be on his side to accomplish them, and consider the strategy he has implemented. I am hoping you will stumble upon a Moment of Insight and realize how foolish you are to not have understood his plan from the very beginning, as it was entirely over your head.
Knowing that, you tell me:
Is Donald Trump an idiot who outsmarted you, or are different people good at different things?
I trust the obvious answer is also the one that will hurt your pride the least: That people are geniuses in different respects.
Which, unfortunately for your perception of the world, can only mean that Donald Trump is absolutely a genius at working with people. Occam's Razor would suggest that this is the most likely explanation as to how he led his company to the massive success it has, as business is nothing but dealing with people and convincing them to sign pieces of paper.
Or will you sputter some absolute tripe that suggests his 4 small bankrupted companies amidst hundreds of ongoing successful ones, billions of dollars in yearly revenue, and choice real estate ownership in major cities around the world is something every idiot stumbles upon?
Signed,
A dumbass laborer that fixes machines an engineer designed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @12:11PM
If there's anything that indicates a successful business, its multiple bankruptcies.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:34PM
In some industries, big companies start lots of projects, some of which may fail and/or be cancelled. In others, people spawn little companies (precisely to isolate the liability), some of which may fail and/or be closed - or sold. Multiple people in tech point out that if you're not failing now and then, you're not trying anything new and inventive enough. OTOH, one must consider who gets left holding the bag - or who gets left having lost money (including having not gotten paid what they were promised) - when the bottom falls out. When big companies start projects and cancel them, the people get shifted to other projects. When little companies go bankrupt, the WHOLE IDEA is to get out from under commitments.
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Friday September 09 2016, @02:01AM
If there's anything that indicates a successful business, its multiple bankruptcies.
It's all the rage in silicon valley.
"I have 3 startups under my belt and I'm going for a fourth"
Really is just saying I failed 3 times and lost a lot of other peoples money.. But this time it really is a good idea, honest.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:40AM
Actually, if anything indicates success it's owning a massive private airplane with some of the best construction in the world.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:19PM
You do realize we only have Trump's word for his worth, and outside observers put his wealth much lower. I'm afraid you might be sputtering tripe.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:37PM
Which, unfortunately for your perception of the world, can only mean that Donald Trump is absolutely a genius at working with people. Occam's Razor would suggest that this is the most likely explanation as to how he led his company to the massive success it has, as business is nothing but dealing with people and convincing them to sign pieces of paper.
Occam would note that being born rich is a greater predictor of wealth than being born intelligent.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:23AM
For a scoop of anectodal evidence from someone who lives in one of the wealthiest cities in the world and is friends with several children of millionaires, I can tell you that in every single case I know of and have heard of, those children are poorly adjusted to adult life and are absolutely terrible with finances, as they have never needed to worry or even think about them.
The majority of people who are just born rich end up like Paris Hilton - addicted to drugs and out of control. Donald Trump is absolutely a special case.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday September 08 2016, @11:09PM
I agreed with you right up until you got to Trump... :)
How about the fact that he could have been far wealthier by NOT starting all these companies and just sitting on his money?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html [yahoo.com]
I don't think it's a sign of any great success or brilliance that someone who was given millions by their parents has mostly managed to hold on to it. And while the guy *does* have some skill dealing with people, I think a lot of his charisma is just pure wealth. People will listen to *anyone* with that much money -- just like you, they assume that if he's rich he *must* be brilliant. But the real world is rarely that fair.
Not that the rest of what you say is at all untrue, I just think Trump is a rather poor example.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:34AM
It's striking to me how you read Yahoo! News as well as Soylent, which does not have corporate media sponsorship.
Donald Trump has had 4 companies go bankrupt.
One of Hillary's triumphs as Secretary was bringing China into the World Trade Organization which bankrupted hundreds of thousands of American companies, and her direct decisions led to millions of American jobs being lost.
So what was that you implied about only wanting to vote for somebody who's never made a mistake? :)
"has mostly managed to hold on to it."
For the record, Donald Trump is wealthier now, and has his thumbs in more pies around the world, than his father or anyone in his family ever had before. He is not "holding on" he is innovating, and with innovation comes failure. Ask Thomas Edison. I don't know how to state an objective truth which directly contradicts your stated position more simply.
"I think a lot of his charisma is just pure wealth."
Does Paris Hilton have charisma? Can Bill or Melinda Gates rally a crowd of tens of thousands locally, or millions nationally, to thunderous and heartfelt applause? Please answer the question directly and truly, because so long as we are on planet Earth the answer is absolutely no. There is something else at play with Trump.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday September 12 2016, @08:34PM
I don't particularly read Yahoo! news, I just used Firefox search and that was the best/first result. It's been pretty widely reported.
Who exactly are you replying to here? Because I see nothing in my post that implies that in any way...
You can be wealthier without being particularly successful. The point is he could have stuffed that money in an index fund and been *even wealthier* than he already is. Which means the performance of his business ventures was below average. Sure, he made money. If you stick a twenty bucks in a savings account for a year that will also make money. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you were successful or did great things. It's all about what you compare it to. And with all that work he did, all those companies he started, just compared to sticking it in a fund and doing no work at all Trump still came out behind.
Are you telling me Paris Hilton isn't famous and doesn't have fans? That Bill has never spoken to a packed auditorium at a conference? Seriously? Granted, when Gates gets up there and talks about software development...well, not that many people care about software development. If Gates decided to run for president and got up on stage promising to violate the very laws of physics and magically solve all the world's problems, I'm sure he'd have just as big of a following. But Gates isn't quite narcissistic enough to do that.
(Did I just say something positive about Bill Gates? I think I'm gonna vomit... ;) )
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:43AM
ignorance and stupidity
I can not abide deliberate ignorance and stupidity. Most people just do not know better. They never will. Is it that big of a deal? They are ~happyish~. Is that really a bad thing?
You however seem to wear your 3rd grade assessment as some sort of badge, as if life is some sort of high score. You are deliberately being ignorant of their lives. Take this one guy I know. I mean this guy is dumb. I mean borderline retarded dumb. He is probably in the 60-70s. Everything in his life is a real struggle. Doing something as simple as going to the store is a huge exercise. You have 10 dollars but want to buy dinner for tonight and a snack. For us it is a matrix math problem with a bit of priority optimization. For him he has no idea what to buy first. How to tell if something is a good deal or a bad one. Does he buy the 2 4 packs of hot dogs or the 8 pack? Sometimes stores flip the bigger is cheaper around. Yet for him figuring that out is 15-20 mins of comparison and fiddling with a calculator then a best guess. If he recognizes the problem at all. I personally try to teach him. What good is a high IQ if all I do is sit back and laugh at those around me?
Show some humility and empathy. You might just learn a thing or two you didn't know even existed. You have deliberately blinded yourself to other views. All in the name of some ideal you made up.
Donald Trump and his ilk who support him
You seem to think the presidential election is some sort of IQ race. It is not (never has been). It is a persuasion race. Donald Trump is one of the best. Clinton herself seems to be pretty bad at it, however she has a pretty good crew backing her up. Johnson is basically a tea party republican with a couple of SJW issues tossed in and is using tea party rhetoric. Stein has 0 chance. You are using the election as an opportunity to use confirmation bias to reaffirm your self identity of 'I am smart'. You are ignoring why people like Trump and Sanders had a good run of it. Many people are seriously dissatisfied with the current state. Obama crushed it 8 and 4 years ago on that very platform then didn't deliver (remember 'change', 'hope'). You can blame whoever (the reasons may even be true), but he sold himself as that change and hope candidate. 2 years ago pretty much everyone I talked to it was 'vote the establishment out'. You are ignoring them in some sort of high and mighty ideal that that no one will ever live up to. Why not try asking people why they are dissatisfied? Maybe you can help?
Remember people are terrible at self assessment and of others. Our brains lie to us all the time. Our brains do not even realize they are deluding us. Take for example me. Everyone tells me that I am smart. Yet I personally do not believe it at all. Yet I can demonstrate it over and over. Yet I still do not buy it but then again sometimes I do. Now I know my brain is lying to me. So which way is it. Am I smart or am I dumb? Now keep this in mind you are probably assessing me in some way to stack rank yourself against me. But your brain is lying to you too.
Here is another to bake your noodle. Lets say I walk into a room. I could walk into a room and have the highest IQ. But be the stupidest person there. Lets say I walked into a room of car salesman. There is a good chance I am probably the smartest IQ. There is also a good chance I am the dumbest person there on selling things. Do not treat IQ as 1 dimensional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:41AM
Here is another to bake your noodle. Lets say I walk into a room. I could walk into a room and have the highest IQ.
I don't know why people are obsessed with IQ, or the social sciences in general. The idea that you can measure someone's intelligence using a single number when we don't even fully understand intelligence is far too simplistic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:48PM
Which was my point at the end of that paragraph.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:17AM
If you're smart enough you'd realize that unless you're one of those in power your vote counts about as much (often less) as the vote of a stupid and/or ignorant person. You'd also know that the stupid and ignorant people make up the majority of the population. Trump has got lots of their votes, he didn't get them by accident, he got where he is by knowing how to influence people. Go figure.
Lastly, IQ is overrated. There were plenty of geniuses working for Hitler. Many weren't that willing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by letssee on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:05AM
As did most older coders I know (including myself). I does not really mean you're very smart, I've met some rather stupid people in this demographic. I myself am maybe slightly more 'intelligent' (in the mathematical sense, socially not so much) then average, but certainly not genius level.
> I can't say I'm very popular among others because I have little patience
I know the problem, but I'd end the sentence there. And I'd guess you'd probably do too if you're honest :-) Thinking yourself as smarter than everybody else is good for a laugh but if you really believe it you miss a lot of opportunities to broaden your horizon. (end of preachy mode)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:46AM
Also obviously not in the field of language. ;-)
(Score: 1) by letssee on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:53PM
woops. My native language shows through :-) (in dutch they're both 'dan')
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Noldir on Thursday September 08 2016, @11:53AM
I don't personally know you but going by your words you seem highly intelligent, but lack a lot of wisdom.
Discarding people solely based on how intelligent you perceive them to be? Hardly intelligent, as all people have something to contribute and share. Even those you perceive as 'stupid'. I'm probably a lot smarter then most blue-collar workers when it comes to working with my head. But if I where to work with them in their playing field? Then I'd be perceived as a complete idiot since I wouldn't know, for them, the most basic of skills.
Take an example from Neil deGrasse Tyson, a highly intelligent man that understands that intelligence is not a throne to sit on, but a helping hand to better those around him by teaching.
And for closing thoughts: when working with people, I rarely abide by those sitting on a high horse pretending to be ´geniuses´. They rarely have anything to contribute and if they have, it´s neigh impossible for them to realise that everything happens through a coordinated effort of a lot of people and they are just a cog in the machine. Be nice to your janitor, he makes sure you have coffee and empty garbage cans. I know I do.