We were in general agreement the entire time. My point was that DS's point wasn't supported. You are just a cranky ******* looking to argue minutia.

A ****-load of things have to go right for someone to score 1-in-10,000 on any test (700 prior to turning 13). If I had to guess the most common limiting factor is desire/motivation/interest, not access to learning materials. I know a ****-load of really smart people (several of whom I know because of the SMPY study) who have ****ed up hairstyles who "should" know better than to look ridiculous.

If we examine the regular suspects here we find that it isn't so much that their teachers and bosses were horrible, but more that they were poor students and workers.

I'm not sure about how developed even precocious eight year old brains are. But I am sure that if everybody was forced to learn algebra and geometry as well as they could in sixth grade and were previously forced (because of a ten million dollar prize) to concentrate hard on arithmetic before that a good one percent at least could get 760 (about 82 out of 90) in the seventh grade. And ten percent would get there by twelfth grade. Those who base any disagreement with that based on present day statistics need to take a look at the actual questions. Perhaps ten percent of them would be tough to explain to my cockatoo.

You're such a pessimist. Brian thinks 50% could do it (well,700) under those conditions if they just gave a ****. Also, 82/90 = 760?!? It should be higher than that (like 85-86ish).

Lol. You made at least one child, so you are an expert in child development as far as I am concerned. Definitely more so than your average child development expert.

As an expert, can you honestly say that your child uses the correct number of the letter T in his name? Was he consistently compliant with your wishes? Has he lived up to his full potential?

Did I say anything like that at all?

Unintentionally I'm sure. If 50% of people aren't able to do it, given that they give a **** and are otherwise in the best possible environment to succeed, then at least 50% of people are drawing dead from birth because their limiting factor is just not being capable of learning fast enough no matter what. Motivation and everything else for them is irrelevant because they'd fall short anyway no matter what. So that would mean you're calling motivation a limiting factor for somebody who's drawing dead to learning ability.

The flaw in your argument is that I don't think analytical/logical IQ (assigning overall general IQ number to an individual is dubious imo) has everything to do with getting a good score. It seems to me this more of a contest of who likes math puzzles more than who (side note: I don't like math puzzles). I mean, if you've seen a lot of math puzzles and know the solutions to all of them it becomes a lot easier when you see a similar problem on the test. I feel like experience trumps IQ here.

Yes Tom, they would also have to not be ducks and most likely have to own at least one set of clothes. The point was more that having working arms and legs and coordination doesn't mean that a child will keep their bedroom tidy to their full potential.

The actual flaw in his argument is that we don't know whether there is just a smartness threshold required to be met or whether there is continuous improvement as braininess increases beyond that threshold.

I think that most here are already in agreement that certain qualifying events must occur prior to being a successful mathlete. Taking math courses is probably one of them.

No, your statement was quite clear. You said THE MOST COMMON limiting factor is desire.. and now you agree it's just not, and probably agree that it's not even close. (it is *a* limiting factor of course- you could have just said that).

I am still saying that it is most likely the most common limiting factor. Not wanting to spend hours and hours each day training is present in the vast majority of kids.

Desire is the main factor that keeps people from running a four hour marathon. But not a three hour marathon. The present day math 760 SAT is like a 3:45 marathon. I could teach Lestat to do it.

So the limiting factor for why a quadriplegic doesn't run a marathon is a lack of desire to train for it? That's your argument? Really?

Being a quadriplegic is not even close to being the most common limiting factor in causing lack of marathon running in the general population.

Obviously. Tom seemed to get off track of your argument. The bottom line is that lack of motivation is what keeps people from being very good at most endeavors while lack of talent is what keeps people from being great. But you only have to be very good to get 760. Even at age 13.

For some reason, when you post in any kind of an intelligence thread, you just lose all of it.

(the analogy is that you agreed that more than half the population were the equivalent of mental quadriplegics, drawing stone dead no matter what at birth, when it came to scoring high enough young enough. But unless you ascribe something *else* (e.g. motivation) as the limiting factor to mental quadriplegics, which you seem to agree is silly, you can't exceed mental quadriplegia as the most common limiting factor. How is this difficult?)

DS- if you really can do it that easily, there's a ton of money and fame doing it for a bunch of rich kids. I'm sure I'll hear about it when you pull it off. Consider one copy of Poker, Tutoring & Life sold.

Entertainingly, I did most of my research on psychometric measures.

50% drawing stone dead because of cognitive ability is less than 99% drawing dead because of personality traits.

DS doesn't have the ability to drastically change a kid's personality.

I know. That's why it's hard to figure out why your posts are on par with fishpoop's in gay threads. There's actually an amazing parallel between his constant knee-jerk bat**** denials of straightness and your constant knee-jerk bat**** denials/dodges of value of innate intelligence.


ROFL. Because those traits are clearly immutable at birth (if they develop any later, it's like turning a quadriplegic lazy), and because it's clearly necessary to possess anything close to 99th percentile motivation to score 760 (or 700, whatever) math before age 13 regardless of talent/available instruction (hint: that's not remotely true).

I just happen to know how malleable intelligence is and how poorly designed IQ tests are for measuring it.

The vast majority of people have the potential of developing a healthy brain (at conception). As long as nothing gets ****ed up during development, there is plenty of innate cognitive ability to acquire the skills of acting intelligently.

I'm not sure if you have much experience with them, but newborns are dumb as a box of rocks. Most of the developmental things that need to be done in order to develop the skills necessary come well before formal instruction.

I'm also not sure if you understand what I mean by motivation. I don't mean "works hard" or "is compliant." Potentially smart-at-math kids become smart because they enjoy problem solving. Problem solving makes you good at problem solving.

At stuff like this it isn't the same sort of motivation that most people think of. A toddler who doesn't enjoy playing with blocks just isn't going to develop the visual-spatial skills that (most) people require in order to become good at math. A kid who doesn't feel relief when a problem turns into a solved problem just isn't going to develop the necessary problem solving skills. A kid thinking about tater tots during their math lessons is going to miss out on some of the lesson. Those things are not an indication of innate cognitive ability, but they definitely develop intelligence.

It would be a rare kid who doesn't feel that sense of relief when an unsolved problem would result in a beating.

I largely agree with this....but dredging up something from the past, you once said that fewer than 50% of Harvard/Yale law students could get a BS in physics from a random university without "extreme struggle". Do you still think this is true? Do you think it would be easier for the average elite law school student to get a BS in physics from a random school than to get their elite law degree?

(I'll admit I showed a poker playing HLS friend your post and he laughed at it, as I did before I showed it to him)

A child with even moderate problem solving skills would realize that the actual problem to be solved is "how to avoid beatings."

Our current namby pamby culture provides them with more options.

Did you ever mention this concept before? Has anybody? Its true of course. And if you just came up with it needs to be named after you. Perhaps "micklessness".

A fieldsmedal is awarded to:

http://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=10481

From St.Petersbourg.


For his contributions to Geometry, and his revolutionary insight into the analytical and geometric structure of the ricci flow.