Natalie Portman - Scientist(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Natalie Portman - Scientist
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/science/01angier.html?ref=natalieportman
176 comments
Inspired by a comment in this thread, I created a "Courage Natalie" meme generator so you can have fun with how smart she is: http://memegenerator.net/courage-natalie
She went to Harvard while filming movies (with a grueling schedule to boot). How many of you can say that you went through an equal or greater gauntlet?
I for one believe that shows intelligence and hard work.
I for one believe that shows intelligence and hard work.
Each of the actresses highlighted is Jewish.
Well yeah...she is Jewish.
That was an interesting article. I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred.
The last sentence, "You can be a scientist, but if you want your name in lights, you’d better play one on TV." made me a little sad. Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those. I don't know how much progress a society can make if everyone aspires to be a cheerleader.
On a positive note: I've been watching bits and pieces of Jeopardy's "Teen Championship" and girls are doing very well in that! I hope the finals is an all-girls affair, that would be great.
The last sentence, "You can be a scientist, but if you want your name in lights, you’d better play one on TV." made me a little sad. Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those. I don't know how much progress a society can make if everyone aspires to be a cheerleader.
On a positive note: I've been watching bits and pieces of Jeopardy's "Teen Championship" and girls are doing very well in that! I hope the finals is an all-girls affair, that would be great.
"I wish more of the media would highlight Natalie Portman's scientific cred"
Can I ask why? It wouldn't make a difference to her performances, so if she chooses to not use her scientific creds why should anyone feel the need to mention them? It doesn't validate her as a person anymore than if she was a talented actress who used to be a waitress.
Can I ask why? It wouldn't make a difference to her performances, so if she chooses to not use her scientific creds why should anyone feel the need to mention them? It doesn't validate her as a person anymore than if she was a talented actress who used to be a waitress.
I think ajays said why: Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those.
I'm going to stuff words into ajays' mouth but if someone as "cool" as Natalie Portman can be so intelligent, that perhaps helps to counter a little of the anti-intelligence schtick that's common in some areas of life.
That said, many famous people are more qualified and intellectually agile than their public personas and media coverage give them credit for..
I'm going to stuff words into ajays' mouth but if someone as "cool" as Natalie Portman can be so intelligent, that perhaps helps to counter a little of the anti-intelligence schtick that's common in some areas of life.
That said, many famous people are more qualified and intellectually agile than their public personas and media coverage give them credit for..
It's not about her, it's about the little girl who is growing up thinking she could never be a scientist because it's too hard or girls can't do math or whatever inaccurate stereotype.
I'm not sure the idea was to validate her as a person. It was more to reprupose her from being a "beauty idol" to being a "scientist idol"
This is important if you beleive that 1) A society with more Scientist idols would get more scientists than one with more beauty queen idols 2) A society with more scientists would be a better place than if it had more beauty queens.
This is important if you beleive that 1) A society with more Scientist idols would get more scientists than one with more beauty queen idols 2) A society with more scientists would be a better place than if it had more beauty queens.
>Can I ask why?
Because it would encourage a lot of people to become interested in science.
Because it would encourage a lot of people to become interested in science.
It could also inspire people trapped in dead-end science careers to take acting lessons.
That could mean the end of silly Hollywood movie physics. Imagine the possibilities!
Silly Hollywood movie physics gave us The Matrix, Back to the Future, etc. Necessary evil, IMO.
It's true-my initial post was sort of meant to be tongue-in-cheek :)
I could go on about how awful some movies have been but that's for another discussion.
I could go on about how awful some movies have been but that's for another discussion.
Sorry, but actors don't write the scripts!
> Eventually, we get what we celebrate; ...
Serious question. I wonder why if anti-intellectualism is so widespread in the US, you guys still have some of the best native-born scientists in the world (although there are more and more imported ones). What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture? Anyone with good answers please do chime in.
Also, if the quote is true, then China and India with their strong, sometimes even fanatic, encouragement on nurturing and praising smart kids (from everyone, including other kids) will take over the scientific world in due course.
Of course there are other factors that disadvantage them: funding, bureaucratic system & work environment for scientists, to name a few. But those are getting better very quickly. A key factor that slows down scientific progress in these countries though is the focus on making money and building one's wealth for societal and familial respect instead of pursuing one's passion.
In spite of the all those things, I recently read from the Economist that China will overtake the US in the number of patents granted this year or the next. (And that is probably because patents are more likely than scientific papers to help with wealth creation for its inventors and funding organizations).
Serious question. I wonder why if anti-intellectualism is so widespread in the US, you guys still have some of the best native-born scientists in the world (although there are more and more imported ones). What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture? Anyone with good answers please do chime in.
Also, if the quote is true, then China and India with their strong, sometimes even fanatic, encouragement on nurturing and praising smart kids (from everyone, including other kids) will take over the scientific world in due course.
Of course there are other factors that disadvantage them: funding, bureaucratic system & work environment for scientists, to name a few. But those are getting better very quickly. A key factor that slows down scientific progress in these countries though is the focus on making money and building one's wealth for societal and familial respect instead of pursuing one's passion.
In spite of the all those things, I recently read from the Economist that China will overtake the US in the number of patents granted this year or the next. (And that is probably because patents are more likely than scientific papers to help with wealth creation for its inventors and funding organizations).
> What are the offsetting factors that allow all these smart kids to pursue what they love despite the anti-intellectualism in the wider culture?
If it's like Australia, it's because when you escape adolescent daycare, you discover at university that there are people as smart as you. Often smarter.
And it's bloody marvellous.
If it's like Australia, it's because when you escape adolescent daycare, you discover at university that there are people as smart as you. Often smarter.
And it's bloody marvellous.
Why be sad? It's the way of things. A scientist does science, interested in analysing something. An actor is interested in presenting themselves to huge numbers of people and being popular in doing so. It's the whole point of the job - the actor's job is inherently self-promoting; it can't exist without some form of self-publicising.
[deleted]
Nobody is idly "celebrating" any actor. What people celebrate are people who entertain them. Scientists are not entertaining. Fundamentally, it's a selfish activity.
I find this articles lack of hot grits disturbing.
I know it's (barely) related to the current thread, but Queen has an astrophysicist as a lead guitarist... Face it, some people can pull this multi-discipline s*ht off.
Brian May's story is pretty impressive. He left school while pursuing his PhD when Queen became popular. Over 30 years later he finished his studies and obtained his degree.
There's also Brian Cox (there must be something in the UK water about turning out musicians/physicists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
Also Tom Scholz of Boston. MIT-trained mechanical engineer, worked for Polaroid, and then left to found one of great classic rock bands.
In that vein, all three members of the J. Geils Band were engineering students at my college (WPI) ;)
And apparently the lead singer/guitarist/keyboardist for OK Go (although I think that was after I left)
And apparently the lead singer/guitarist/keyboardist for OK Go (although I think that was after I left)
I scrolled all the way to the bottom of the comments, getting more and more depressed thinking as I'm the only old codger who remembers this meme. I am happy to find out I'm not the only one!
Ya, I did the same, and upvoted the comment when I saw it.
Would love to see the battle of votes on that comment. But sheesh, isn't it ok to have a little fun now and then. I mean it is even kinda on topic. :)
Would love to see the battle of votes on that comment. But sheesh, isn't it ok to have a little fun now and then. I mean it is even kinda on topic. :)
I had exactly the same thought, and I upvoted it too! I thought my comment would get downvoted to oblivion as well, but I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling nostalgic. When the meme isn't even features on KnowYourMeme.com, you know it's old.
Welp, it wouldn't be a hot grits comment if it didn't get modded into oblivion :P
Don't worry. Some of us old codgers still enjoy themselves.
He's not mentioned in the article, but Dylan Bruno from Numb3rs is an MIT grad (we both played on the football team) and, coincidentally, acted in a movie opposite Ms. Portman :)
Woodie Flowers always used to say that we need an "LA Engineer" (a play on "LA Law for you younger folks) to bring science and engineering into the mainstream. I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as socially inept - given that association, it's no surprise that many kids would rather be "dumb and cool" than "smart and nerdy" when in fact smart people are just like everyone else.
Woodie Flowers always used to say that we need an "LA Engineer" (a play on "LA Law for you younger folks) to bring science and engineering into the mainstream. I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as socially inept - given that association, it's no surprise that many kids would rather be "dumb and cool" than "smart and nerdy" when in fact smart people are just like everyone else.
I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as socially inept ... when in fact smart people are just like everyone else
I think thats what Big Bang Theory does best... portray smart people who are socially inept as someone that anyone can relate to. In the show, they are just regular people trying to get by, find love, etc... well, except for Sheldon.
To me, its amazing that a show that is completely over the top nerdy is incredibly popular.
I think thats what Big Bang Theory does best... portray smart people who are socially inept as someone that anyone can relate to. In the show, they are just regular people trying to get by, find love, etc... well, except for Sheldon.
To me, its amazing that a show that is completely over the top nerdy is incredibly popular.
On the other hand, I'm completely unamazed that a show that reinforces negative geek stereotypes while passing itself off as an accurate and fair representation is incredibly popular.
> "while passing itself off as an accurate and fair representation"
... Wait, what? You know you're talking about a sitcom, right? The whole point of the show is to be ridiculous for laughs.
... Wait, what? You know you're talking about a sitcom, right? The whole point of the show is to be ridiculous for laughs.
I'm referring to the GPs attitude towards the show. Despite the near constant stream of jokes at geeks expense, people still somehow think it isn't making fun of geeks.
It's a sitcom. That's what they do... don't take it so seriously.
My point was that people other than traditional 'geeks' find the show amusing. They get the humor. Geek-culture has gone mainstream.
My point was that people other than traditional 'geeks' find the show amusing. They get the humor. Geek-culture has gone mainstream.
I don't think that's accurate. They're laughing at us, not with us. They don't need to understand "geek-culture" to laugh at us. We just need to be different.
Sheldon is actually played in a pretty high-status way, despite his quirks.
Popular entertainment has tons of smart, cool people- Just none of them spend all their time with solitary, sedentary activities on a computer or in a lab. How many times do you see a 'mission impossible' type hero who goes around kicking ass for most of the movie but suddenly turns into a hacker when he gets to a computer terminal?
Just none of them spend all their time with solitary, sedentary activities on a computer or in a lab
That's just it - the folks that do spend there time on a computer or in a lab (off the top of my head: the goth girl from NCIS, the Law & Order lab techs, Chloe on 24) all have some sort of anti-social nerd personality type.
Why can't there be a computer tech who works hard at his/her job, has a beer after work, watches sports, etc like everyone else?
That's just it - the folks that do spend there time on a computer or in a lab (off the top of my head: the goth girl from NCIS, the Law & Order lab techs, Chloe on 24) all have some sort of anti-social nerd personality type.
Why can't there be a computer tech who works hard at his/her job, has a beer after work, watches sports, etc like everyone else?
Well if you want the hard truth most of the people I see doing these jobs on TV are actually better looking and less socially awkward than the ones I work with on a daily basis.
@jhamburger (I can't reply to your post)
Well sure, but the folks on TV are better looking and less socially awkward across the board than their real-life counterparts.
Well sure, but the folks on TV are better looking and less socially awkward across the board than their real-life counterparts.
Have a look at Guy Steele's interview with Fran Allen in a recent CACM--John Cocke was fond of beer, and people used to covet his bar napkins, on which he would sketch out new ideas.
[deleted]
I always cringe at shows like Big Bang Theory that portray smart folks as socially inept
Fringe makes science look pretty cool, IMHO.
Fringe makes science look pretty cool, IMHO.
I'd take Fringe over Big Bang Theory any day. BBT feels like mockery to me.
From what I've seen of Fringe, it makes a mockery of science.
I didn't mean to suggest that it portrays realistic science or an accurate representation of the scientific process - after all this is a show whose main plot revolves around travel between alternate universes and non-human shapeshifting sentient beings - just that the show makes it's scientist character the heroes, and not buffoons to laugh at.
[deleted](4)
Come on, she is an actress with a BA in Psychology. Lets have this discussion again when she gets her PhD. Until then, perspective.
The point wasn't the degree. But more that she made the semifinals of the Intel Science Talent Search -- that in itself is prestigious, but at the same time (and I quote):
"She’d been in films directed by Woody Allen, Tim Burton and Luc Besson, appeared opposite Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, Matt Dillon, Uma Thurman, Drew Barrymore and I’m getting tired of typing celebrity names here. She took on the major role of Queen Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy that rocketed her to international fame."
To be honest, I'm not sure there's any degree where the mere act of receiving it would be more impressive than the above feat.
"She’d been in films directed by Woody Allen, Tim Burton and Luc Besson, appeared opposite Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, Matt Dillon, Uma Thurman, Drew Barrymore and I’m getting tired of typing celebrity names here. She took on the major role of Queen Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy that rocketed her to international fame."
To be honest, I'm not sure there's any degree where the mere act of receiving it would be more impressive than the above feat.
"To be honest, I'm not sure there's any degree where the mere act of receiving it would be more impressive than the above feat."
Because being in the presence of popular people is a major accomplishment, right? Far greater an accomplishment than the defense of any original PhD thesis, right?
I can drive to the Viceroy hotel bar right now and be in the presence of a random A-list celebrity if I so choose. By your logic, that act alone sets me worlds apart from the entire body of original research being done by PhD candidates all over the world.
I will never understand the nature of being starstruck. If I want to shut down my rational faculty, I have a bottle of Glenkinchie at the ready.
Because being in the presence of popular people is a major accomplishment, right? Far greater an accomplishment than the defense of any original PhD thesis, right?
I can drive to the Viceroy hotel bar right now and be in the presence of a random A-list celebrity if I so choose. By your logic, that act alone sets me worlds apart from the entire body of original research being done by PhD candidates all over the world.
I will never understand the nature of being starstruck. If I want to shut down my rational faculty, I have a bottle of Glenkinchie at the ready.
No, she's not Paris Hilton. She was actually cast and did a superb job in roles with all-star directors like Luc Besson, in Leon. It's not that she happened to bump into Luc at a bar. But that she did her homework to be cast and then a great job in the role (and quite honestly I think one of top 1% of performances I've seen, period).
No one is starstruck by Woody Allen. But you're startstruck by his work.
Let me put it to you this way. I'm FAR more certain that you can get a PhD than you could ever get half the critical acclaim or box office receipts that Natalie has gotten.
Although, I'd just love to find out you are actually Will Smith and have just blown my thesis to pieces. :-)
No one is starstruck by Woody Allen. But you're startstruck by his work.
Let me put it to you this way. I'm FAR more certain that you can get a PhD than you could ever get half the critical acclaim or box office receipts that Natalie has gotten.
Although, I'd just love to find out you are actually Will Smith and have just blown my thesis to pieces. :-)
Exactly. I have no doubt she is very intelligent and _could_ have been a scientist if she had chosen to. But until she publishes her own peer-reviewed research or gets an advanced science degree, she is "an actress with a BA in psychology", thank you. She's impressive enough w/o artificial hype.
She has published peer reviewed research: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... (her actual name is Natalie Hershlag). One of the co-authors is Jerome Kagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Kagan. Seems good enough to me. Certainly not a career scientist; very few would be with another venture making millions. But she has walked the walk. There's no hype here.
She has a Erdos-Bacon number(degrees of kevin bacon + paper co-author distance from the extremlly well published mathematician Paul Erdős) of 6.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number)
okay, perhaps you and i have different definitions of "scientist". anyway, i don't want to overdo this here, if you want to call her "scientist", fine.
i know who she is since i saw beautiful girls and of course leon and she always stood out to me as a very, very smart person, but in my book one student co-authorship does not make one a "scientist". it's more like "very good student", "on the way" or "caught the attention of a famous prof and got a head start". none of which detracts from her, btw.
but hey, i suffer my own forms of hero worship, all of which is harmless fun, which is what hollywood is here for, i suppose. ;-)
i know who she is since i saw beautiful girls and of course leon and she always stood out to me as a very, very smart person, but in my book one student co-authorship does not make one a "scientist". it's more like "very good student", "on the way" or "caught the attention of a famous prof and got a head start". none of which detracts from her, btw.
but hey, i suffer my own forms of hero worship, all of which is harmless fun, which is what hollywood is here for, i suppose. ;-)
Hero worship?
My heroes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kennedy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Powers.
People I'd place in the category of scientist based on the fact that she co-authored a paper with one of the pioneers of developmental psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman.
That's a far cry from being a hero. Please, let's be reasonable.
My heroes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kennedy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Powers.
People I'd place in the category of scientist based on the fact that she co-authored a paper with one of the pioneers of developmental psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman.
That's a far cry from being a hero. Please, let's be reasonable.
For the geeky types, she has an Erdős–Bacon number of 6 :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number...
EDIT: it is 6, not 5, sorry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number...
EDIT: it is 6, not 5, sorry
I do so desperately want a small walk-on part in a film with Kevin Bacon to get an Erdős–Bacon number of 3.
I know, I know, it's hardly a worthy ambition. But still.
<sigh>
I know, I know, it's hardly a worthy ambition. But still.
<sigh>
Have you tried asking him? A hand-written letter might just work.
I yet may do just that. I have, at various times, had speculative versions running around in my head.
Recently a good colleague of mine died very suddenly. I realised that there was so much I had wanted to ask him about, and never got the chance. Last year I got to spend an afternoon with one of my childhood - and adulthood - heroes. That was just 2 months before he died.
If you put up a piece of A0 paper marked off in centimeter squares, and I marked them off one per day, there's a very good chance I wouldn't cross them all off before I die. I'm starting to think of some of the things I want to do for me, as well as the things I want to leave for others.
Maybe I should write to Kevin Bacon.
Recently a good colleague of mine died very suddenly. I realised that there was so much I had wanted to ask him about, and never got the chance. Last year I got to spend an afternoon with one of my childhood - and adulthood - heroes. That was just 2 months before he died.
If you put up a piece of A0 paper marked off in centimeter squares, and I marked them off one per day, there's a very good chance I wouldn't cross them all off before I die. I'm starting to think of some of the things I want to do for me, as well as the things I want to leave for others.
Maybe I should write to Kevin Bacon.
In honor of her scholarly pursuits, beauty and skill as an actor, we gave one of our products the internal codename 'Natalie' last year.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out another "scientist" (minor) actor not mentioned in this article:
- speaks Swedish, English, Spanish, some German, some French, some Japanese, and some Italian
- awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- has a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney (1982)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_lundgren
- speaks Swedish, English, Spanish, some German, some French, some Japanese, and some Italian
- awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- has a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney (1982)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_lundgren
Or how about this fellow who has an undergraduate degree in Chemistry, a PhD in law, and was an Olympic swimmer but is best known for his movies where he gets into fights with other guys (pretty much everybody in my age bracket in Germany and some other European countries knows him).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Spencer
Edit: He is also a jet pilot, helicopter pilot, holder of multiple patents, and a startup founder with a successful exit as Wikipedia shows! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Spencer
Edit: He is also a jet pilot, helicopter pilot, holder of multiple patents, and a startup founder with a successful exit as Wikipedia shows! :)
Kind of ironic to be so gifted in so many areas, and yet be famous for something you're not even good at.
One bad movie pays more than a year in the lab.
[deleted]
And that none of the above information appears in the wikipedia page...
Edit: I just can't read... it's there as mentioned below.
Edit: I just can't read... it's there as mentioned below.
It's all in the third paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_lundgren#Early_life. Here is a permalink in case of future edits to the version I am viewing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&...
I don't know, he was pretty good at pretending to be a Russian boxer.
Oh, you mean acting.
Oh, you mean acting.
You forgot "European karate champion". My favorite Dolph story is that he put Stallone in the ICU for 8 days:
> Sylvester Stallone has stated that the original punching scenes filmed between him and Dolph Lundgren in the first portion of the fight are completely authentic. Stallone wanted to capture a realistic scene and Lundgren agreed that they would engage in legitimate sparring. One particularly forceful Lundgren punch to Stallone's chest slammed his heart against his breastbone, causing the heart to swell and his breathing to become labored. Stallone, suffering from labored breathing and a blood pressure over 200, was flown from the set in Canada to St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica and was forced into intensive care for eight days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_IV
> Sylvester Stallone has stated that the original punching scenes filmed between him and Dolph Lundgren in the first portion of the fight are completely authentic. Stallone wanted to capture a realistic scene and Lundgren agreed that they would engage in legitimate sparring. One particularly forceful Lundgren punch to Stallone's chest slammed his heart against his breastbone, causing the heart to swell and his breathing to become labored. Stallone, suffering from labored breathing and a blood pressure over 200, was flown from the set in Canada to St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica and was forced into intensive care for eight days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_IV
"Hedy Lamarr complained bitterly that people would look at her face and assume there was nothing behind it. Perhaps it was a case of projection. “When you see a very beautiful face, it’s stunning, and you yourself become stupefied,” said Lisa Heiserman Perkins, who has completed a documentary about Lamarr. “So you project your own stupidity onto the person you’re looking at.” "
Now, maybe I'm projecting my own stupidity to this remark but it just seems hare-brained. This effect is very easy to understand: many beautiful people you've met before have little/no interest in science, i.e. appear to be stupid, so your subconscious Bayesian learner assigns a low probability to the gorgeous woman you see having invented a new spread spectrum technique.
Now, maybe I'm projecting my own stupidity to this remark but it just seems hare-brained. This effect is very easy to understand: many beautiful people you've met before have little/no interest in science, i.e. appear to be stupid, so your subconscious Bayesian learner assigns a low probability to the gorgeous woman you see having invented a new spread spectrum technique.
And yet, there is actually a positive correlation between physical attractiveness and IQ.
True, but in most cases this IQ may be dormant, since from an early age attractive people learn that they can get what they want without working as hard as other people. It's like weight lifting on the moon!
Here's the paper she entered into the Intel Science Talent Search: http://www.natalieportman.com/articles/1998/chemicaleducatio...
I'm envisioning a Chuck-Norris-esque meme evolving from said article. Personally, I'm much more of a fan of Greg Graffin, frontman of Bad Religion and Evolutionary Biology PhD from Cornell, who also happens to be a faculty member at UCLA: http://www.spotlight.ucla.edu/faculty/greg-gaffin_bad-religi...
Regrettably, the meme-space vis-a-vis Natalie Portman has already been staked out by hot porridge made of roughly ground corn.
I see this image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KMqOPeCgoT0/S_ABM6dl-II/AAAAAAAAF0...) atop a radiantly-colorful meme backdrop, a la Courage Wolf, with such sayings as "I Just Divided By Zero" and "Maybe You Should Have Kept Your Documents in the Cloud, Tesla"
Do it. Seriously. I want to see that meme.
All right everyone [insert brisk clap-clap], get back to work. Natalie Portman isn't wasting her day wondering about your scientific (or acting) credentials, so you've got better things to do than worry about hers. Go work on your business or some other more fruitful activity.
one of the reasons i loved Avatar is because the foundation of its universe is relentlessly scientific and natural, on top of which there is spiritual and social goodness
another movie like this that comes to mind is The Incredibles, which despite featuring superheroes has clear respect for physics
i sure wouldn't mind more movies like that. i think there is greater creativity from starting with a rigorous foundation
another movie like this that comes to mind is The Incredibles, which despite featuring superheroes has clear respect for physics
i sure wouldn't mind more movies like that. i think there is greater creativity from starting with a rigorous foundation
James Franco is very impressive as well. From his Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franco#Personal_life :
Franco has been described as having "an unusually high metabolism for productivity...a superhuman ability to focus". Dissatisfied with his career's direction, Franco reenrolled at UCLA in the fall of 2006 as an English major with a creative writing concentration. Having received permission to take as many as 62 course credits per quarter compared to the normal limit of 19 while continuing to act, he received his undergraduate degree in June 2008 with a GPA over 3.5.
He moved to New York to simultaneously attend graduate school at Columbia University's MFA writing program, New York University's Tisch School of the Arts for filmmaking,and Brooklyn College for fiction writing, while occasionally commuting to North Carolina's Warren Wilson College for poetry.[1] He received his MFA from Columbia in 2010. Franco is a Ph.D. student in English at Yale University and will also attend the Rhode Island School of Design.
Franco has been described as having "an unusually high metabolism for productivity...a superhuman ability to focus". Dissatisfied with his career's direction, Franco reenrolled at UCLA in the fall of 2006 as an English major with a creative writing concentration. Having received permission to take as many as 62 course credits per quarter compared to the normal limit of 19 while continuing to act, he received his undergraduate degree in June 2008 with a GPA over 3.5.
He moved to New York to simultaneously attend graduate school at Columbia University's MFA writing program, New York University's Tisch School of the Arts for filmmaking,and Brooklyn College for fiction writing, while occasionally commuting to North Carolina's Warren Wilson College for poetry.[1] He received his MFA from Columbia in 2010. Franco is a Ph.D. student in English at Yale University and will also attend the Rhode Island School of Design.
Franco is obviously extremely productive and very bright, but I can't help but focus on the fact that he has a full+ time personal assistant. She's up 18 hours a day with him handing the "details" of his life, so he's free to focus on whatever he wants to focus on.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of difference that would make in my life, particularly when I was in grad school.
And then I tell myself to shut up and get back to work.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of difference that would make in my life, particularly when I was in grad school.
And then I tell myself to shut up and get back to work.
So... why not make it happen? Perhaps not all of it can be done, but Tim Ferriss talks about having an outsourced personal assistant.
If you are the type who could work all those extra hours, try outsourcing as many activities as possible. Start with housekeeping services, as an example, and perhaps a personal cook.
If you are the type who could work all those extra hours, try outsourcing as many activities as possible. Start with housekeeping services, as an example, and perhaps a personal cook.
Nice article.
Two sentences jumped out at me.
First:
“There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.”
then:
If anything, stories like Ms. Portman’s show that great success, like DNA, is constructed of a few basic building blocks: tenacity, focus, and the old Woody Allen line about just showing up.
No question about the importance of things like hard work, tenacity, focus, not taking anything for granted, and just showing up. We all have to do these things.
The phrase that really got me thinking was "intellectual horsepower". What is that? And how important is that?
I used to be awfully hasty in judging others, "She is really smart," or "He is so stupid". Then I learned alot from my first mentor. He taught that there often isn't much difference between someone who appears smart and someone who doesn't. Perhaps no one spent enough time with them. Maybe they have other challenges, like family, health, or circumstances. Maybe they're just a fish out of water, spending too much time on things that don't interest him. Or maybe they appear dumb because they actually believe that they are. They've been told so many times that they now believe it.
At first, he sounded like some hippie idealist. But the more we worked together, the more his teachings manifested themselves in the people we worked with. People who appeared dumb blossomed under different circumstances all the time. The were smart deep down inside where no one ever explored. (These people were mostly hourly workers who knew way more than their bosses about running the business.)
To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all.
And just to stay humble, remember: we're all just one head injury from blissful ignorance.
Two sentences jumped out at me.
First:
“There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.”
then:
If anything, stories like Ms. Portman’s show that great success, like DNA, is constructed of a few basic building blocks: tenacity, focus, and the old Woody Allen line about just showing up.
No question about the importance of things like hard work, tenacity, focus, not taking anything for granted, and just showing up. We all have to do these things.
The phrase that really got me thinking was "intellectual horsepower". What is that? And how important is that?
I used to be awfully hasty in judging others, "She is really smart," or "He is so stupid". Then I learned alot from my first mentor. He taught that there often isn't much difference between someone who appears smart and someone who doesn't. Perhaps no one spent enough time with them. Maybe they have other challenges, like family, health, or circumstances. Maybe they're just a fish out of water, spending too much time on things that don't interest him. Or maybe they appear dumb because they actually believe that they are. They've been told so many times that they now believe it.
At first, he sounded like some hippie idealist. But the more we worked together, the more his teachings manifested themselves in the people we worked with. People who appeared dumb blossomed under different circumstances all the time. The were smart deep down inside where no one ever explored. (These people were mostly hourly workers who knew way more than their bosses about running the business.)
To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all.
And just to stay humble, remember: we're all just one head injury from blissful ignorance.
To this day, when I see phrases like, "intellectual horsepower", I cringe. We "smarties" aren't that much smarter than most other people, if we are at all.
I don't think this is true at all. People who are average intelligence or below can be very successful but have no chance of succeeding in high level intellectual pursuits. People who are smart don't understand this, because to them learning anything is just a matter of effort.
I think there is truth in what you are saying, because at a certain level of intelligence, hard work and attitude become more of a bottleneck than ability. This is supported by facts as well, studies have found that success increases by IQ score, but levels off or drops at a certain point where brainpower is more of a handicap to mental health than a benefit.
I don't think this is true at all. People who are average intelligence or below can be very successful but have no chance of succeeding in high level intellectual pursuits. People who are smart don't understand this, because to them learning anything is just a matter of effort.
I think there is truth in what you are saying, because at a certain level of intelligence, hard work and attitude become more of a bottleneck than ability. This is supported by facts as well, studies have found that success increases by IQ score, but levels off or drops at a certain point where brainpower is more of a handicap to mental health than a benefit.
I don't think IQ has much to do with success. I've met a lot of brilliant people who can't finish projects, speak up, know when to back down, etc. I think success is more about discipline, moral courage, and hard work than it is about how smart you are.
I think at the upper levels of intelligence, you are talking about the engineering limits of the brain as a physical thinking machine. Everything is working as well as it can; in this case, I suspect the difference between the top 100th percentile and the top 10th is not all that great. That's not to say there isn't a competitive advantage, just that it levels off, like it does in athletics.
What if the reason people are 'smart' is because of the way their brain has organized itself over the years in response to learning so much? Then it isn't that dumb people are dumb, just behind.
That isn't reality. The genetic factors of intelligence are well documented. I could have played basketball six hours a day, every day for the last 25 years, and I'd be really really good. But I wouldn't be as good as Lebron James was when he was 12 years old.
[deleted]
You'd probably be better than most other basketball players.
If you want to be the best in the world, it's true that factors outside of your control come into play. If you can "settle" for being in the top 10, top 100, or top 1000, instead of #1, you probably don't need much besides a lot of well-directed effort.
In my experience.
If you want to be the best in the world, it's true that factors outside of your control come into play. If you can "settle" for being in the top 10, top 100, or top 1000, instead of #1, you probably don't need much besides a lot of well-directed effort.
In my experience.
There's a guy who went to my college, Jared Jordan- Fairly nondescript athlete, 6'2 slow white guy. Basketball is basically his life, worked his ass off more than anyone and studied the game to the point where he knows it more than the coaches do. He was drafted in the 2nd round of the NBA draft a few years ago, never made any teams' roster. All the scouts said the same thing- absolutely no upside. Now he's playing in Europe. That is about the ceiling of what you can do without being 'gifted'.
Well if he's 5'9 he's not gonna make even the top 1000.
I am going to guess you have not heard of dunk contest winning NBA players Spud Webb (5'7) or Nate Robinson (5 '9) then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pykLK_CUs
This recent submission and its discussion is relevant to your claim, "General factor of intelligence g, a Statistical Myth": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2210147
I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. It gives us an excuse for why we don't.
I disagree with your claim about Lebron James, but I don't think there's enough data for an evidence-based debate. I do think, however, that people want to believe that others who operate at the genius level in various activities have genetic gifts. It gives us an excuse for why we don't.
What I find odd is that most people want to believe everyone is born equal. They want to believe this so badly they ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example, I can eat anything and won't gain weight, yet someone else is morbidly obese on the same diet. I can glance at something once and memorize it easily whereas else may have to spend hours and hours. We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.
I sincerely doubt that you are skinny on a diet that would make someone else morbidly obese [1]. What I think is more likely is that you eat as much as you want and are skinny. You're just lucky that, either through nature or nurture, what you want to eat, and the amount you want to eat, balances out with what your body needs.
I agree that there are going to be variations in inherent intelligence, body composition, or even ability to play basketball. I just don't think it's as extreme as some people do, nor do I think it's enough to be the sole enabler of people who operate at the genius level in activities.
[1] Assuming they don't have a hormonal problem, which are known to cause people on reasonable diets to become obese.
I agree that there are going to be variations in inherent intelligence, body composition, or even ability to play basketball. I just don't think it's as extreme as some people do, nor do I think it's enough to be the sole enabler of people who operate at the genius level in activities.
[1] Assuming they don't have a hormonal problem, which are known to cause people on reasonable diets to become obese.
This is backed up by medical knowledge. It has been repeatedly shown that metabolism varies very little between people when corrected for body mass. What does vary considerably is appetite, and this is the major contributor to body weight.
Do not say 'backed up by medical knowledge' unless you plan on citing sources.
I don't have much time right now, but I did find a good starting point: http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/6/1561S.abstract "In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus."
Also: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v8/n7/abs/oby200063a.html Talks about insulin secretion being different between races even after accounting for other factors.
gasp we all aren't created equal! We all don't have the same benefits. Some people are born disadvantaged and must work for things!
And to the comment a few levels up, my ~3,500kcal diet would make some people obese even after accounting for my activity levels! 1 kcal for you is not the same as 1 kcal for me, bodies differ in conversion, storage, and utilization.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't like admitting that just as we differ on the outside (beauty, fitness) we are also different on the inside (metabolism, disease susceptibility)
I don't have much time right now, but I did find a good starting point: http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/6/1561S.abstract "In this regard, the proneness to store energy primarily as fat or as lean tissue is a major determinant of the response to a caloric surplus."
Also: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v8/n7/abs/oby200063a.html Talks about insulin secretion being different between races even after accounting for other factors.
gasp we all aren't created equal! We all don't have the same benefits. Some people are born disadvantaged and must work for things!
And to the comment a few levels up, my ~3,500kcal diet would make some people obese even after accounting for my activity levels! 1 kcal for you is not the same as 1 kcal for me, bodies differ in conversion, storage, and utilization.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't like admitting that just as we differ on the outside (beauty, fitness) we are also different on the inside (metabolism, disease susceptibility)
I have a hard time understanding why people don't like admitting that just as we differ on the outside (beauty, fitness) we are also different on the inside (metabolism, disease susceptibility)
I can only speak for myself, but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sums it up pretty well for me.
Beautiful to whom?
Fit for what?
Susceptible to which diseases? Concrete example: Carrying a gene for sickle-cell disease is obviously bad... unless you want some resistance to malaria. So which is it now, good or bad?
Of course people are different, and that's awesome. But the idea that you can give people "scores" on a bunch of axes like the ones above, and then figure out who is "better" or "worse" seems to me naive at best.
I can only speak for myself, but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sums it up pretty well for me.
Beautiful to whom?
Fit for what?
Susceptible to which diseases? Concrete example: Carrying a gene for sickle-cell disease is obviously bad... unless you want some resistance to malaria. So which is it now, good or bad?
Of course people are different, and that's awesome. But the idea that you can give people "scores" on a bunch of axes like the ones above, and then figure out who is "better" or "worse" seems to me naive at best.
it is awesome that people differ. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages but people aren't equal. Some people will have lots of advantages with minimal disadvantages, and yet others will have the opposite. I don't understand why people like to deny this.
It's not so very hard to understand. Historically people used (and still use) 'differences' as a reason to enslave, murder and other wise subjugate tens of millions of other humans.
So there is a backlash against that. Thankfully. And along the way, in the push back, facts may get lost. Fact's that really, in the context of war, were not helpful.
And now humanity's leading edge seems to be becoming comfortable with that fact we are all different and actually kind of the same and are accommodating of wonderful multiplicity.
Whilst watching the shadow aspects of our egos, in case they come out to grandstand.
So there is a backlash against that. Thankfully. And along the way, in the push back, facts may get lost. Fact's that really, in the context of war, were not helpful.
And now humanity's leading edge seems to be becoming comfortable with that fact we are all different and actually kind of the same and are accommodating of wonderful multiplicity.
Whilst watching the shadow aspects of our egos, in case they come out to grandstand.
> We are not born equal, BUT we can improve ourselves.
Why would you think we're equally able to improve ourselves, either?
Why would you think we're equally able to improve ourselves, either?
Why is it so easy to accept that pretty much everything in our bodies is genetic but not intelligence? I don't see why it would be any different. We already know that the brain is not just one big 'computing mass' but instead consists of many thousands of extremely specialized systems interconnected in a genetically-determined way shaped over thousands of years of evolution. If some of these systems are missing or not connected properly because of some genetic alteration it causes a wide spectrum of effects in our mental development. We know depression has a genetic element. We know downs syndrome is genetic. We know that identical twins separated from birth are remarkably similar, not just in how they look but also in how they act, how they see the world, what kind interests they have and so on.
It's naive to think everyone is born equal that way.
It's naive to think everyone is born equal that way.
Nowhere did I say "equal." I think there is a distribution, but I don't think the distribution is extreme for those who don't have a disability such as mental retardation. As such, while I think inherent intelligence is a factor in people's successes, I don't think it's the dominant factor.
Everyone isn't born equal, but everything we have doesn't solely come from genetics. Nurture plays a huge role in our development. Saying Natalie Portman is successful solely because of her DNA is wholly disrespectful to her hard work. She didn't get best actress and a masters degree by just slumming it because her genes did all the work.
It's naive and ignorant to ignore nurture in the debate. A lack of Vitamin D or cholesterol can inhibit myelin growth, which notably in the womb causes a miscarriage or still-birth/brain dead baby. It's reasonable to assume that a lack of Vitamin D or cholesterol in a child's formative years is going to cause severe developmental problems.
Natalie Portman has a degree and an oscar for one simple thing: She works hard.
If she didn't work hard she might be a recognizable actress, but she'd be like a huge number of university enrollees in that they never get any degree.
Genetics is a firm foundation, bad genetics can cause lots of problems. But only work is going to build a house, and only hard work is going to build you a mansion.
It's naive and ignorant to ignore nurture in the debate. A lack of Vitamin D or cholesterol can inhibit myelin growth, which notably in the womb causes a miscarriage or still-birth/brain dead baby. It's reasonable to assume that a lack of Vitamin D or cholesterol in a child's formative years is going to cause severe developmental problems.
Natalie Portman has a degree and an oscar for one simple thing: She works hard.
If she didn't work hard she might be a recognizable actress, but she'd be like a huge number of university enrollees in that they never get any degree.
Genetics is a firm foundation, bad genetics can cause lots of problems. But only work is going to build a house, and only hard work is going to build you a mansion.
There's a fair bit of evidence that hard work is itself genetic, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification is largely due to certain brain structures. Those brain structures can be affected by genetics, by environment (eg. fetal alcohol syndrome results in a marked loss of impulse control later), or by practice, but not everybody starts from the same point.
Anyway, your point gets into issues of free will and consciousness that philosophers have been debating for centuries. If everything has a cause, how can we say what we're actually responsible for, and how much is just a reaction to random chance? Perhaps consciousness is largely an illusion: the brain makes decisions based on firmly ingrained circuits that function at a subconscious level, and only later does that bubble up to the conscious level.
Anyway, your point gets into issues of free will and consciousness that philosophers have been debating for centuries. If everything has a cause, how can we say what we're actually responsible for, and how much is just a reaction to random chance? Perhaps consciousness is largely an illusion: the brain makes decisions based on firmly ingrained circuits that function at a subconscious level, and only later does that bubble up to the conscious level.
Even if not everyone starts at the same point that doesn't mean they will continue to stay ahead. People operate under the assumption of a constant veclocity in development. And that development is non-inertial (in the physics sense). The rate of development function could well be logistic or with an asymptote or some like - removing that insurmountable gap implicit in so many statements.
We may all end up near enough (for all practical purposes) at the same endpoint if we all worked hard and performed necessary rotations and frame changes given our situations. The brain is very malleable.
There is also the fact that people start at different places for different areas and that chooses where they end up specializing. And there is probably some self-fulfilling prophecy going on that trains people to avoid smarty pants subjects which are vital for developing rigorous thinking. why is it a matter of pride to be terrible at maths and technical subjects? or the fact of growing up with certain teachers and society all but directly informing you that certain races aren't up for certain more mathy subjects. I can certainly attest to that stuff messing up your ability to keep on when things get difficult.
We may all end up near enough (for all practical purposes) at the same endpoint if we all worked hard and performed necessary rotations and frame changes given our situations. The brain is very malleable.
There is also the fact that people start at different places for different areas and that chooses where they end up specializing. And there is probably some self-fulfilling prophecy going on that trains people to avoid smarty pants subjects which are vital for developing rigorous thinking. why is it a matter of pride to be terrible at maths and technical subjects? or the fact of growing up with certain teachers and society all but directly informing you that certain races aren't up for certain more mathy subjects. I can certainly attest to that stuff messing up your ability to keep on when things get difficult.
If she didn't have the right genes to go with her hard work she wouldn't get anywhere either.
She'd have probably got somewhere average. Similarly if she had all the right genes and none of the hard work she'd have got somewhere average again. However, there's people who work way too hard to succeed and totally burn out.
We have nature, nurture and random chance that create all of us. I wouldn't have said "life's too short" and moved country if I hadn't read a single book (The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin) that I have no clue how it came to be in my possession.
My entire life is based on seemingly random chances. I met my wife via friends of friends of friends whom I originally met in a chat room. I got my dog (Dachshund x Jack Russell) by going to the SPCA when they were flooded with Labrador crosses and they had no terriers up for adoption, but she was getting taken out for a walk at that very moment.
Our entire lives are quantified by our reaction to random chance. I had less odds of being where I am today than I have of winning the lottery, but why do the events of my life occur so but my lottery ticket is always going to be a dud for the rest of my life.
It's the mixture of our nature and nurture that define who we are, by how we react to random occurrences. What random shit defined your life so far?
We have nature, nurture and random chance that create all of us. I wouldn't have said "life's too short" and moved country if I hadn't read a single book (The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin) that I have no clue how it came to be in my possession.
My entire life is based on seemingly random chances. I met my wife via friends of friends of friends whom I originally met in a chat room. I got my dog (Dachshund x Jack Russell) by going to the SPCA when they were flooded with Labrador crosses and they had no terriers up for adoption, but she was getting taken out for a walk at that very moment.
Our entire lives are quantified by our reaction to random chance. I had less odds of being where I am today than I have of winning the lottery, but why do the events of my life occur so but my lottery ticket is always going to be a dud for the rest of my life.
It's the mixture of our nature and nurture that define who we are, by how we react to random occurrences. What random shit defined your life so far?
First, not everything from our body genetic as you say, there is still much to learn there.
But more significantly, intelligence is a very fuzzy concept, much harder to describe and more so define than eye color or height. It is also as much of a cultural concept as things like beauty, charisma, etc... Which is also why it is a more touchy subject than eye color or height: it is much more related to one own ideology.
But more significantly, intelligence is a very fuzzy concept, much harder to describe and more so define than eye color or height. It is also as much of a cultural concept as things like beauty, charisma, etc... Which is also why it is a more touchy subject than eye color or height: it is much more related to one own ideology.
>Why is it so easy to accept that pretty much everything in our bodies is genetic but not intelligence?
Because intelligence is much less understood than most of the rest of our bodies. For example, there have been various discoveries that seem to indicate our language has an effect on what we can know and understand [1, 2, etc.]. Perhaps there are dramatic differences in what each of our brains are capable at the "hardware" level, but the "software" (language) dampens the effect.
[1] The Piraha can't learn numbers after a certain age because they have no words to describe them
[2] An article a few months back about deaf people growing up without any language ended up bringing out the fact that some asian languages have words to describe some aspect of color that westerners do not. Babies are able to see the difference but gradually lose the ability as they grow up with no way of expressing it.
Because intelligence is much less understood than most of the rest of our bodies. For example, there have been various discoveries that seem to indicate our language has an effect on what we can know and understand [1, 2, etc.]. Perhaps there are dramatic differences in what each of our brains are capable at the "hardware" level, but the "software" (language) dampens the effect.
[1] The Piraha can't learn numbers after a certain age because they have no words to describe them
[2] An article a few months back about deaf people growing up without any language ended up bringing out the fact that some asian languages have words to describe some aspect of color that westerners do not. Babies are able to see the difference but gradually lose the ability as they grow up with no way of expressing it.
How do you know that?
Another case in point: taxi drivers apparently have growing brain regions for geographic stuff (learning their city by heart). I guess you wouldn't expect most taxi drivers to have above average intelligence, but if you tested their geographic "senses", they might register as geniuses. But they also probably didn't become taxi drivers because of their talent - it developed by them being taxi drivers.
Another case in point: taxi drivers apparently have growing brain regions for geographic stuff (learning their city by heart). I guess you wouldn't expect most taxi drivers to have above average intelligence, but if you tested their geographic "senses", they might register as geniuses. But they also probably didn't become taxi drivers because of their talent - it developed by them being taxi drivers.
At the risk of both taking a cheap shot and perpetuating an industry stereotype, I haven't encountered too many geographically genius-level taxi drivers in my city.
I'm just happy if they have a GPS navigation system and can vaguely understand the directions issued from same.
I'm just happy if they have a GPS navigation system and can vaguely understand the directions issued from same.
You probably don't live in London, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
When taxi drivers are required to demonstrate a deep knowledge of the geography of their area and are not allowed to rely on maps or GPS navigation systems in order to be certified, you end up with taxi drivers that are very good at navigating the city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
When taxi drivers are required to demonstrate a deep knowledge of the geography of their area and are not allowed to rely on maps or GPS navigation systems in order to be certified, you end up with taxi drivers that are very good at navigating the city.
Now, you're adding a very strong element of filtering to the process, and you can't really make any statements about how big of a component of the ability to navigate is learned.
Supposedly most super successful sports stars weren't the best when they were 12 years old (or however young). Most of the ones that rose to the very top were average or above average early in their lives, but through an unusual amount of determination, focus, and time, they rose to the top.
Not a given. This will depend on how directed your training was and how good Lebron James was at 12 and how long he had been playing at that point. Getting good at something is like any other type of optimization, getting that final bit of performance takes an inordinate amount of work. [EDIT I took it upon myself to skim a bio. Sure Lebron had talent but he owes a lot to his coaches who took a special interest in him as a youth]
Most people can get within less than 2 seconds of Usain Bolt's best time. Going beyond that you run into a sheer cliff face. For athletes those fractions of a second is where biology starts to make a difference, the vast majority of differences in skill however, can be found in hard work.
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio
Most people can get within less than 2 seconds of Usain Bolt's best time. Going beyond that you run into a sheer cliff face. For athletes those fractions of a second is where biology starts to make a difference, the vast majority of differences in skill however, can be found in hard work.
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOu_4l3lio
The purpose of treating everyone as if they had equal intelligence is not a rigorous scientific pursuit, it's about creating an environment most encouraging to learning and problem solving. Engineers are much more motivated to tackle hard problems and even work together if they believe that they can adapt to each others' differences.
Intelligence is real but very difficult to quantify.
The last time I was familiar with the literature (~10 years ago), intelligence was best defined as having many dimensions. It's a collection of weakly related gifts. Spatial reasoning, for example, is a different kind of intelligence than musical ability. Perhaps someone more up to date on the science can chime in.
In any case, attempts to squash all those dimensions into a single numerical scale (like an IQ) hide a lot of information and can be very misleading.
The last time I was familiar with the literature (~10 years ago), intelligence was best defined as having many dimensions. It's a collection of weakly related gifts. Spatial reasoning, for example, is a different kind of intelligence than musical ability. Perhaps someone more up to date on the science can chime in.
In any case, attempts to squash all those dimensions into a single numerical scale (like an IQ) hide a lot of information and can be very misleading.
Way back when I was studying intelligence there were a number of specialties, but there were three broad groups that these specialties seemed to cohere under:
1) Algorithmic intelligence: the layman's usual picture of intellegence around working with concepts, figures, space, so on and so forth
2) Verbal intelligence: working with language and expression, vocabulary, etc
3) Social intelligence: being able to read people and social situations
This was the state of play ~15 years ago and things may have restructured, but it points out that acuity can be in places other than the usual geeky fare. The sales guy that can sell you something you don't want and make you feel good about it is able to read your cues and formulate responses to counter 'incorrect' behaviour.
1) Algorithmic intelligence: the layman's usual picture of intellegence around working with concepts, figures, space, so on and so forth
2) Verbal intelligence: working with language and expression, vocabulary, etc
3) Social intelligence: being able to read people and social situations
This was the state of play ~15 years ago and things may have restructured, but it points out that acuity can be in places other than the usual geeky fare. The sales guy that can sell you something you don't want and make you feel good about it is able to read your cues and formulate responses to counter 'incorrect' behaviour.
IQ is the KSLOC of the psychometrics world.
Intelligence may or may not have multiple facets, but the "multiple intelligences" fad proposed by Howard Gardner was basically shown to be bunk, devoid of any real scientific evidence.
I thought that too until I moved to San Francisco and started meeting people that consistently see things that I miss. It wasn't that they had more domain knowledge or worked harder, it was that they were just better at seeing remotely connected things.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they're innately smarter than you.
When I first moved out to Silicon Valley and started working at Google, I met lots of people that consistently saw things that I missed. Even ones who didn't have as much experience as I did, at least in terms of year-as-a-computer-programmer.
Now that I've been here a couple years, I've found that I'm consistently seeing things that other people are missing. Even, in some cases, the same people that consistently saw things I missed when I joined.
It hasn't been because my innate intelligence has gone up. (In fact, as measured by my performance against the Starcraft: Brood War AI, my reaction time and ability to think quickly seems to be going consistently down since high school.) Rather, I've accumulated lots more domain knowledge. And it's tacit domain knowledge, little subconscious bits that are floating around the Valley culture but that people aren't aware of on a conscious level. If you don't know to look for such domain knowledge, it seems like the person is just massively smarter than you. And if you have that domain knowledge, you usually aren't aware that you have it, and so it seems like you're massively smarter than everyone else. But if you actually look closely at the leaps of logic that intelligent people make, and then trace those solutions back to the knowledge that enables them, you can almost always find some particular fact hidden away in the back of somebody's brain that accounts for it.
When I first moved out to Silicon Valley and started working at Google, I met lots of people that consistently saw things that I missed. Even ones who didn't have as much experience as I did, at least in terms of year-as-a-computer-programmer.
Now that I've been here a couple years, I've found that I'm consistently seeing things that other people are missing. Even, in some cases, the same people that consistently saw things I missed when I joined.
It hasn't been because my innate intelligence has gone up. (In fact, as measured by my performance against the Starcraft: Brood War AI, my reaction time and ability to think quickly seems to be going consistently down since high school.) Rather, I've accumulated lots more domain knowledge. And it's tacit domain knowledge, little subconscious bits that are floating around the Valley culture but that people aren't aware of on a conscious level. If you don't know to look for such domain knowledge, it seems like the person is just massively smarter than you. And if you have that domain knowledge, you usually aren't aware that you have it, and so it seems like you're massively smarter than everyone else. But if you actually look closely at the leaps of logic that intelligent people make, and then trace those solutions back to the knowledge that enables them, you can almost always find some particular fact hidden away in the back of somebody's brain that accounts for it.
> Rather, I've accumulated lots more domain knowledge. ... And if you have that domain knowledge, ... it seems like you're massively smarter than everyone else.
It's interesting many traditional software companies seem to promote the idea of "subject matter experts" (SMEs) as a key part of their software development process. Although I think the concept of SMEs is somewhat flawed, the idea that domain knowledge is vitally important becomes more clear to me the longer I spend working in a particular area. You can't be an effective developer in any industry unless you work on building up your domain expertise.
It's interesting many traditional software companies seem to promote the idea of "subject matter experts" (SMEs) as a key part of their software development process. Although I think the concept of SMEs is somewhat flawed, the idea that domain knowledge is vitally important becomes more clear to me the longer I spend working in a particular area. You can't be an effective developer in any industry unless you work on building up your domain expertise.
I meant that you can put them in a place where they have no more domain knowledge than I do and they see meaningful connections between seemingly unconnected ideas that I miss. The people that I've met that are good at doing this are also highly creative (they appear to be related).
That doesn't mean intelligence isn't malleable - San Francisco might just be a great environment for helping people see those connections more and more.
We are all simply products of intelligence + environment. I am however, more to the reverse of your experience. I used to believe that almost everyone could be amazing and brilliant if just given the opportunity and another set of circumstances. While I know that to be true in some cases, I also have learned over the years that many people just aren't bright enough to get advanced concepts and never will.
Well, yes, intelligence needs to be trained, shaped, refined. But are you saying that there is no difference between humans when it comes to their maximum potential? I think everybody has an 'intelligence ceiling', and that ceiling can only be asymptotically approaches by study, hard work, circumstances etc. But that doesn't take away from the (imo) fact that there is a ceiling and that some people, no matter what they do, will never achieve the level some others do.
I think the issue here is that you're saying "if person A is good at math person B may never be able to get as good at math". This I would agree with, but I think person B might be able to get better in some area than person A ever could.
Equal in that sense, not identical.
Equal in that sense, not identical.
Not necessarily. I don't see a reason why person B would have to have something he's better at than A, except maybe statistical - there are millions of things a person can be good at, so the chances he's worse than the other in all things are very small.
But then still, it's entirely possible that person A is better at many more things than person B. So 'equal' as in 'A and B are the best in an equal amount of things', I don't see any reason why it would be so.
But then still, it's entirely possible that person A is better at many more things than person B. So 'equal' as in 'A and B are the best in an equal amount of things', I don't see any reason why it would be so.
I guess I don't understand your need to have the phrase 'intellectual horsepower' or even 'bright' or 'smart' tied to someone's genetic makeup and potential.
If I see a really big guy in the gym lifting a ton of weight, we can agree he's strong. That doesn't make a judgement on his work ethic vs. his genetics, and it doesn't imply that people who aren't as strong don't have every bit of potential to get to where he is.
It's simply an observation on the facts of reality the way they are now. Now, I happen to be in the camp that believes you can make yourself smarter, so passing judgement on someone's intellectual horsepower in no way is me critiquing their potential.
If I see a really big guy in the gym lifting a ton of weight, we can agree he's strong. That doesn't make a judgement on his work ethic vs. his genetics, and it doesn't imply that people who aren't as strong don't have every bit of potential to get to where he is.
It's simply an observation on the facts of reality the way they are now. Now, I happen to be in the camp that believes you can make yourself smarter, so passing judgement on someone's intellectual horsepower in no way is me critiquing their potential.
> ..there often isn't much difference between someone who appears smart and someone who doesn't... Maybe they're just a fish out of water, spending too much time on things that don't interest him.
Amen!
Amen!
"Maybe they're just a fish out of water, spending too much time on things that don't interest him."
Doesn't sound too smart..
Doesn't sound too smart..
I'd probably describe her success as "realized potential". She was gifted with some things congenitally (I mean just look at her), and she seems to have had some very supportive parents.
I read this: “There are very few who are as inherently bright as Natalie is, who have as much intellectual horsepower, who work as hard as she did. She didn’t take a single thing for granted.”
As: Few people who have the same level of intelligence she does, work as hard as she did.
As I understood it, the professor was saying that she outworked her peers, not that she was the smartest of the group but that her work ethic made her exceptional in an already smart group
As: Few people who have the same level of intelligence she does, work as hard as she did.
As I understood it, the professor was saying that she outworked her peers, not that she was the smartest of the group but that her work ethic made her exceptional in an already smart group
You're right about the head injury. That's the only thing that can make any two people on earth intellectual equals.
I would also add - sometimes a smart person just doesn't give a damn about impressing others.
When I deliberately dis-engage in uninteresting conversations with "smart people" I can see them judging me immediately. Sometimes I just don't want to faux-argue over inconsequential bullshit. The older you get the better you get at letting your ego go in these kinds of meaningless contests.
When I deliberately dis-engage in uninteresting conversations with "smart people" I can see them judging me immediately. Sometimes I just don't want to faux-argue over inconsequential bullshit. The older you get the better you get at letting your ego go in these kinds of meaningless contests.
> When I deliberately dis-engage in uninteresting conversations with "smart people" I can see them judging me immediately.
Agreed. And this is the perspective I have for a lot of the discussion threads here on HN. I love HN. But honestly, much of the so-called discussion here is picking at nits and stamp collecting. Even when you "win" you lose because you've wasted the time and effort that could have been better spent in the real world, or doing something to improve your financial or health situation. Not saying all discussion is bad, but one should pick and choose and get the most bang for your buck.
Agreed. And this is the perspective I have for a lot of the discussion threads here on HN. I love HN. But honestly, much of the so-called discussion here is picking at nits and stamp collecting. Even when you "win" you lose because you've wasted the time and effort that could have been better spent in the real world, or doing something to improve your financial or health situation. Not saying all discussion is bad, but one should pick and choose and get the most bang for your buck.
And let's not forget Tom Cruise. No, wait...
I like Natalie. I can't help but wonder, genuinely, if some of her academic success was influenced by her star stature. I've seen evidence that she is indeed quite bright. On the other hand, how many profs are going to give Natalie Portman a B?
Now that you mention it, how is Emma Watson doing at Brown University?
Headline: Rich Person Does Well.
I found this article deeply irritating. I didn't even get through the whole thing, but the message was clear. Sure it is great to be a scientist...but everyone really wants to be a movie star. This makes me want to puke. Shining a bright, glowing light on those who are already drenched in adoration and celebrity. The implication is that if you're "just" a great scientist, you still must live with the bitter knowledge that you aren't loved by the masses. And to have the gall to call this a "science" article. This is the sort of shlock that belongs in People magazine.
The New York Times has been reduced to gawking.
The New York Times has been reduced to gawking.
What I find fascinating about Hedy Lamarr's patent is that it formed the basis, many decades later, for spread-spectrum communication tech used by wifi and CDMA networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr#Frequency-hopping_s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr#Frequency-hopping_s...
Does this girl have a flaw? haha
My favorite celebrity/scientist is Mira Aroyo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira_Aroyo. Musician, model and a published research geneticist from Oxford University's Biochemistry department. She co-authored an article published in Molecular Microbiology in 2003 and sometimes sings in her native tongue - Bulgarian.
Additionally he has, not only his pilot's license, but his APTL license (which requires 1500 flight hours) and is a certified Flight Instructor who has made a round-the-world flight in 10 days.