Why is Judit Polgar so far ahead of every other woman?

[John_Douglas]

In some sports such as basketball there is a physical characteristic, namely height, that provides a natural advantage. (But at the same time, there are plenty of people of that height that don't make the NBA.)

There may be a corresponding natural advantage in chess (or other intellectual disciplines), but I am not entirely convinced of this. In short, no one really knows...

[EGarrett]

I'm curious if anyone here will come out and say that they genuinely believe that every person on the planet is equally intelligent. Because that's what it sounds like some of you are suggesting.

[PyramidScheme]

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme View Post
Again, I'm conceding that geniuses ARE made like he says, but they're only made from people who are born with genius potential.

Originally Posted by KyleJRM82

That's a pretty much untestable hypothesis.

Perhaps, but I consider it such a common sense obvious truth I'm going to go the rest of my life simply assuming the hypothesis true unless it could somehow be proven wrong.

[wlrs]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I'm curious if anyone here will come out and say that they genuinely believe that every person on the planet is equally intelligent. Because that's what it sounds like some of you are suggesting.

This is an interesting topic, I think what is being suggested is "hours and hours of systematic training way overweighs innate ability". Based on what I have read on the topic, it seems like current scientific evidence supports this. Admittedly my sources are those on the "talent is overrated" -side of things.

[EGarrett]

My above post was a reply to John Douglas above me, who seemed to be suggesting that no one person is more intelligent than anyone else.

That being said, there's a misunderstanding that exists when people suggest that a supremely skilled person "just does" what they do. Most notably (and irritatingly) propagated by movies like "Good Will Hunting." ("Mozart and Beethoven looked at a piano and they could just play, I can just do math" No you can't ****head. And Mozart himself said that it was a myth that he didn't work hard).

I think that's what we're all actually railing against and can sense isn't true. I've asked anyone and everyone I've met for years to show me a real example of "effortless genius," as in someone who actually was incredibly good at some skilled activity (and not just memory or other automatic things) who hadn't worked at it.

I also think this is where the obsession with IQ comes from. A lot of people seem to subconsciously believe (and have it subconsciously suggested to them by the media or others) that some people do groundbreaking work in science, math, chess, or whatever intellectual activity SOLELY because their brains are SO incredibly intelligent that it just comes out with no effort whatsoever on their part, so we want to measure IQ as though IQ alone can be high enough to make you do "genius" work. And that if your IQ isn't high enough, you are hopeless. All of this is complete bull****. It does not happen.

The truth is, based on my exhaustive research, an average person can do average work with average effort, and great things with great effort. A really gifted person can do average work with little-to-no-effort, and great things with a small amount of effort, and incredible, "genius-level" things with great effort. There is no such thing as a person who does incredible "genius-level" things with no effort. The people who are at the very top in history are people who had incredible potential AND who worked their asses off on top of it, that's what we see as the peak of achievement in various fields. Just having incredible potential isn't nearly enough.

[EGarrett]

If you ignore the invisible trait of intelligence and look at something clear like height or athleticism, everything will start to make sense.

The most dominant basketball players in history have all been INCREDIBLY gifted in terms of height and/or athletic ability. Look at Michael Jordan, he was 6'6" with a 43-inch vertical leap, placing him well above the top 1% in both categories. But, there have been a LOT of guys in the NBA's past who were similar in both, though there was only one Michael Jordan. Dennis Rodman said that Jordan was the only person he'd EVER seen in his basketball career who actually practiced EVERY DAY. It was that incredible, above average physical potential (which we can see and thus know with 100% certainty existed) combined with his maniacal practice time that made him the best basketball player ever.

The same is true of people like Fischer. He had incredible natural intellectual ability (not natural CHESS ability, but an incredible natural ability to store, sort, and evaluate information in his brain and to thus benefit from practice and experience in an intellectual activity). But he was not alone. There have been a lot of other brilliant guys in chess's past (John Nunn, Sultan Khan, Pillsbury) who didn't reach the heights he did for various reasons. Nunn didn't develop himself enough, Khan didn't have the right educational situation, Pillsbury's health failed. Aspects outside of his control happened to align properly, and he was in a place in life where he could take the most advantage of opportunities and aspects within his control, through practice and dedication and years of experience. As Kramnik said, for that handful of years in the early 70's when he shattered the records, "all the rays were aligned." His brain's exceptional ability to utilize information was just one of several rare elements that contributed to it, but no way, no how, not ever was it the only element.

[PyramidScheme]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

My above post was a reply to John Douglas above me, who seemed to be suggesting that no one person is more intelligent than anyone else.

That being said, there's a misunderstanding that exists when people suggest that a supremely skilled person "just does" what they do. Most notably (and irritatingly) propagated by movies like "Good Will Hunting." ("Mozart and Beethoven looked at a piano and they could just play, I can just do math" No you can't ****head. And Mozart himself said that it was a myth that he didn't work hard).

I think that's what we're all actually railing against and can sense isn't true. I've asked anyone and everyone I've met for years to show me a real example of "effortless genius," as in someone who actually was incredibly good at some skilled activity (and not just memory or other automatic things) who hadn't worked at it.

I also think this is where the obsession with IQ comes from. A lot of people seem to subconsciously believe (and have it subconsciously suggested to them by the media or others) that some people do groundbreaking work in science, math, chess, or whatever intellectual activity SOLELY because their brains are SO incredibly intelligent that it just comes out with no effort whatsoever on their part, so we want to measure IQ as though IQ alone can be high enough to make you do "genius" work. And that if your IQ isn't high enough, you are hopeless. All of this is complete bull****. It does not happen.

The truth is, based on my exhaustive research, an average person can do average work with average effort, and great things with great effort. A really gifted person can do average work with little-to-no-effort, and great things with a small amount of effort, and incredible, "genius-level" things with great effort. There is no such thing as a person who does incredible "genius-level" things with no effort. The people who are at the very top in history are people who had incredible potential AND who worked their asses off on top of it, that's what we see as the peak of achievement in various fields. Just having incredible potential isn't nearly enough.

Totally get what you're saying. I too have been annoyed by this (often by movies) as well and have to frequently remind people that too. I think people like to believe this so they don't have to feel lazy. Everybody who is great at something has worked their ass off to get there. However, no matter how hard I worked at basketball, I never would have been Michael Jordan. Perhaps I could have been Bobby Fischer... but not Michael Jordan <g>



When people take it to the extreme the other way... we get moron ideas like...

"STEROIDS DON'T HELP YOU HIT A BASEBALL!!!... I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH STEROIDS SOMEONE IS ON IT WON'T HELP YOU BE GOOD AT... OR hIT A BASEBALL, THUS STEROIDS EVEN IF THEY ARE BEING USED, CHANGE NOTHING!! RAH RAH!"

...yeah


There are billions of people on this world all competing in a way to be the best at something, you become the best by doing as much work as possible PLUS any edge you can get, because there will be SEVERAL people doing as much work as possible. Those edges can be a high IQ, natural athleticism, steroids, etc.

[John_Douglas]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

My above post was a reply to John Douglas above me, who seemed to be suggesting that no one person is more intelligent than anyone else.

Of course some people are more intelligent than others. I was suggesting that it's not clear to me to what extent this is innately (genetically) determined. When you add up all the environmental factors (diet, education, family environment), my sense is that whatever people mean by "innate IQ" can't really account for that much.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I'm curious if anyone here will come out and say that they genuinely believe that every person on the planet is equally intelligent. Because that's what it sounds like some of you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme

There are billions of people on this world all competing in a way to be the best at something....

Why would you assume any meaningful number of people are competing in any way to the best at anything? People like to think they are, but people are great at lying to themselves. Becoming very good at anything requires an enormous amount of work. And that work is far from enjoyable at times, arguably most of the time.

Sex, beer and games are a whole heck of a lot more immediately rewarding. And it's only natural that people are attracted to that which pays off in the short run. The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment comes to mind as evidence of that. And those that went in for delayed gratification in that experiment also typically performed much better later in life (the experiment was on children) in 'intellectual pursuits.' The reason I think that study is pertinent here is because it showed there were no significant genetic predictors for 'success' on the test. However, social factors were very strong predictors. It's not to say that everybody is equally intelligent, but that genetic factors are rarely going to be what determine who accomplishes what obviously excepting those of inherent retardation of various sorts. The interesting thing is that I'd use this to hypothesize that the advent of the internet will almost certainly further decrease the number of 'geniuses' and otherwise outstanding individuals in spite of the fact that the massive amounts of information instantly available should do exactly the opposite and in enormous scale! But come on: MMOs, endless porn, IM and forums where you can spend hours debating debate itself to no conclusion - or Wolfram?

Laszlo Polgar had a theory and proved it. I hope people realize he announced his plan to create chess 'geniuises' before he was even married, let alone had children! Laszlo Polgar was no genius - he stated that Judit could defeat him when she was just 5. And his idea was based on that of a psychologist who had also completed a similar experiment with similar success. Perhaps people will only be satisfied with the man with the highest IQ on earth copulates with the woman with the highest IQ on earth and they then give the child up to a redneck family in the sticks and, lo and behold, the child ends up a cowtipping bigot of mediocre intellect.

[PyramidScheme]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

Why would you assume any meaningful number of people are competing in any way to the best at anything? People like to think they are, but people are great at lying to themselves. Becoming very good at anything requires an enormous amount of work. And that work is far from enjoyable at times, arguably most of the time.

Sex, beer and games are a whole heck of a lot more immediately rewarding. And it's only natural that people are attracted to that which pays off in the short run. The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment comes to mind as evidence of that. And those that went in for delayed gratification in that experiment also typically performed much better later in life (the experiment was on children) in 'intellectual pursuits.' The reason I think that study is pertinent here is because it showed there were no significant genetic predictors for 'success' on the test. However, social factors were very strong predictors. It's not to say that everybody is equally intelligent, but that genetic factors are rarely going to be what determine who accomplishes what obviously excepting those of inherent retardation of various sorts. The interesting thing is that I'd use this to hypothesize that the advent of the internet will almost certainly further decrease the number of 'geniuses' and otherwise outstanding individuals in spite of the fact that the massive amounts of information instantly available should do exactly the opposite and in enormous scale! But come on: MMOs, endless porn, IM and forums where you can spend hours debating debate itself to no conclusion - or Wolfram?

Laszlo Polgar had a theory and proved it. I hope people realize he announced his plan to create chess 'geniuises' before he was even married, let alone had children! Laszlo Polgar was no genius - he stated that Judit could defeat him when she was just 5. And his idea was based on that of a psychologist who had also completed a similar experiment with similar success. Perhaps people will only be satisfied with the man with the highest IQ on earth copulates with the woman with the highest IQ on earth and they then give the child up to a redneck family in the sticks and, lo and behold, the child ends up a cowtipping bigot of mediocre intellect.

Your final example would probably happen. I am not disagreeing with any of this. All I am saying is people do have limitations based on their genetics. We often use them as an excuse for lazyness. I'm sure my chess potential is much higher than what I got to... for example. Very few people work hard enough to reach their potential at anything.

It is ridiculous to ignore what hard work and upbringing does, and it is also ridiculous to ignore genetics. Some people are smarter than others! gahd. Lazlo may not have been a 'genius' but the mere fact that he was doing a 'experiment' puts him at above average intelligence. None of the 'idioits' in my family will be doing experiment any time soon. And I'm sure a man like that didn't marry a moron either.

Furthermore I am also not saying that every southern cow-tipping hick has low potential, I'm sure many of them have high potential that they never meet.

[EGarrett]

I don't know why I was quoted in Do It Right's reply, he doesn't seem to be saying anything that is opposed to my points. I should say though, that since Laszlo used his own daughters, all of whom share a similar genetic background, his test didn't prove anything. He needs to take children from several different families in order to at least be on the right track.

[justblaze47]

How accurate is that elo gap?

Would she have problems in a round robin tournament versus the top 10 women of the world or would she crush? A bit curious..

My personal opinion is that she would have trouble.

[John_Douglas]

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme

Your final example would probably happen. I am not disagreeing with any of this. All I am saying is people do have limitations based on their genetics. We often use them as an excuse for lazyness. I'm sure my chess potential is much higher than what I got to... for example. Very few people work hard enough to reach their potential at anything.

It is ridiculous to ignore what hard work and upbringing does, and it is also ridiculous to ignore genetics. Some people are smarter than others! gahd. Lazlo may not have been a 'genius' but the mere fact that he was doing a 'experiment' puts him at above average intelligence. None of the 'idioits' in my family will be doing experiment any time soon. And I'm sure a man like that didn't marry a moron either.

Furthermore I am also not saying that every southern cow-tipping hick has low potential, I'm sure many of them have high potential that they never meet.

Ok, but what practical benefit could there be to taking this sort of genetic outlook?

No one can affect their own genes, but everyone can affect their own actions.

Furthermore, on a public-policy level, we know there are plenty of actions we can take to improve the physical and social environment and help people achieve their potential.

My main objection to the argument that "some people are just genetically smarter than others" is not that it isn't true (it obviously is true to some extent), but that it is extremely toxic. It doesn't seem to lead to any sort of positive outcomes in the political arena, and in fact it is mainly employed by obnoxious racist or Social Darwinist types. (I know you're not making the argument from this standpoint here, I just wanted to raise it as a concern I have with your position.)

[EvilSteve]

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

Ok, but what practical benefit could there be to taking this sort of genetic outlook?

Well for one thing, it might prevent people from banging their head against a wall repeatedly if they're striving to achieve something they don't have the ability to achieve. The whole "you can do anything you set your mind to" mentality is actually destructive if taken seriously. Fortunately, most people realize that it isn't true. At least I would hope so.

But anyway the discussion was about Polgar's claim, not whether or not the truth happened to be socially beneficial. Though living in reality is a good thing in general.

[Army Eye]

Originally Posted by justblaze47

How accurate is that elo gap?

Would she have problems in a round robin tournament versus the top 10 women of the world or would she crush? A bit curious..

My personal opinion is that she would have trouble.

If she did struggle at all, it would only be due to her inactivity.

Nonetheless, when she played in the World Cup last year, she beat Movsesian, Karjakin, and Dominguez in "mini-matches". I'd say that confirmed her as still a 2700-caliber player.