Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters

Sunday NY Times Review ^ | 11-20-11 | DAVID Z. HAMBRICK and ELIZABETH J. MEINZ

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks Pharmboy. Brain gene activity changes through life: Studies track biochemical patterns from just after conception to old age by Laura Sanders The mind's eye revealed: New technology uses brain scans to see what a person is watching by Laura Sanders To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Bigg Red]

The article mixes up two types of skills.

&&&
Yes, I found that confusing. The cognitive skills required for the performance of the pianist are not the same as the analytical skills that a physicist uses to solve a problem.

[Bigg Red]

No kid ever wins popularity contests by being the smartest in their class—in fact, that often makes them a social pariah.

&&&
Along those lines, I read quite a few years ago about a study of brain scans done on a group of stereotypical nerds. It found that these kids were geniuses but that there were certain parts of the brain — sorry, I can’t remember the details — that did not “fire” the way others’ did in social situations. It appeared that they were not capable of reading the social signals and emotional responses of other people.

[1010RD]

Your post reminded me of this quote:

“In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” -Eric Hoffer

We live in a world in which there are two classes of people: those who want to coast on achievement and those who want to achieve.

Think about infrastructure or even our capitalistic society. Socialism exists as a parasite on the pre-existing wealth, i.e. living off the principle instead of the profits. Government workers like teachers are those that want to coast - i.e. their investment is less than their withdrawals. A person like Steve Jobs is the opposite extreme and there are plenty of counter examples from the marketplace - F. Ross Johnson comes to mind as a person who ate up and wasted the capital accumulated by his predecessors.

I think success mostly comes from persistence. We learn from failure. The failures that give up stay failures, but the ones that learn and apply that learning, oft times changing course to hit the goldmine, are the real successes. Bill Gates didn’t just win because of his brains or luck, but because he had a viciously desperate need to succeed and so he didn’t quit. There are any number of mildly successful businesses with a founder like that. They don’t make headlines, but they persisted where others quit.

[null and void]

Who needs a high IQ? With the right friends and a teleprompter any idiot could be president.

Heck, you wouldn’t even need to be a Natural Born Citizen...

[null and void]

In the Land of the Blind; the One Eyed man is KING.

Nahhh, they lock him up with all the other lunatics who are "seeing things"...

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I like the quote, “Be at the right spot at the right time, and be prepared”. Being at the correct position when an opportunity occurs doesn’t help unless you have the skills to step in and take over.

[PapaBear3625]

I always remember her saying the smartest person in the world might be living in a hut in the hinterland somewhere, but they might still have the highest IQ.

Case in point, Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, IQ 167, who was living in a hut without electricity or running water.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

From the full article: "...those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage. "

Bull****! Notice that the only "advantages" they list are all verbal/intellectual. How about income? How about market-share? How about job satisfaction? How about actual production (as opposed to "visualization")?

The world needs less doctorates (especially in hypen-studies) and more do-ers!

[null and void]

...fewer doctorates...</grammar nazi>

[chesley]

Having earned a PhD myself, in metallurgical engineering, and from having observed my teachers and fellow students, I can tell you that you can be pretty dumb in a lot of areas, and still get one. You do have to be able to learn calculus and differential equations, though.

But you really do have to be either obsessive about your subject matter, or as was my case, willing to grind it out regardless of inclinations to have some fun.

[exDemMom]

Bull****! Notice that the only "advantages" they list are all verbal/intellectual. How about income? How about market-share? How about job satisfaction? How about actual production (as opposed to "visualization")?

I have to say, I've done pretty well with my PhD. ;-)

[exDemMom]

You do have to be able to learn calculus and differential equations, though.

Depending on the field, the calculus and differential equations may not be necessary. I haven't used calculus since undergraduate school, but I do use logarithmic functions quite extensively.

I'll agree about the obsessive part. At the beginning of grad school, one of the professors told our group that if we aren't absolutely passionate about the subject, we were just wasting everyone's time. He was so right about that...

[chesley]

Well,I haven’t used them much since I got out of school. But I had to learn them to get out.

I was never particularly passionate about my dissertation matter. It was a means to an end. But I do know how to grind :)