Since IQ is a being discussed quite a lot atm, i've started wondering whether IQ and "Talent" exist

Since IQ is a being discussed quite a lot atm, i've started wondering whether IQ and "Talent" exist.

After hours of thinking, i've come to the conclucsion that it exists TO SOME EXTENT.

How true is this?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612457952
msu.edu/~ema/HambrickEtAl13.pdf
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf
gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence#Response_and_criticism
terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/
pnas.org/content/109/2/425.abstract
pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full.pdf
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03395755
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000610?via=ihub
gwern.net/docs/dnb/2010-seidler.pdf
his.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:424076/FULLTEXT01
etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_1?0
ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/54/
psych.wisc.edu/postlab/posters/bornali_cns_2012.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3368385/
scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Redick-et-al-final-JEPG.pdf
gwern.net/docs/dnb/2016-minear.pdf
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016339
jneurosci.org/content/29/7/2212
religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Talent VS Hardwork

Yeah, it's to some extent. Some great extent. 0.6-0.8 heritability factor as well as linear positive correlation to success and happiness in life extent.

Humans are insanely adaptable. There are few normal physical differences you cannot overcome if you try hard enough. All masters have done their craft obsessively for large portions of their life, and 'hard work' pretty much entirely explains anyone who excels at anything, and very few things cannot simply be taught. Talent and IQ may exist, but I seriously doubt they affect much in the grand scheme.

You can't be serious. IQ is a huge factor in being good at mathematics or science in general. You may say "the greats" are great because they've engaged in their area of interest since virtually birth, but that begs the question: why? Why did they and not we? The truth is: because they had the ability, the IQ, to succeed and thus enjoy these intellectually stimulating areas of interest, whereas others had no such ability, grew frustrated at the amount of work they had to give for mediocre results, and played carelessly with other children to attain the same level of pleasure with less effort.

Children forced into early interventions of such activities, such as programming, studying maths etc. showed no quantifiable increase in intelligence, though they did show more discipline. They could not compete with gifted children.

Another study showed that two twins raised in vastly different socio-economic and educational upbringings, though showing some variation in intelligence at first, were virtually no different from each other in terms of intelligence by early adulthood.

Finally, all the masters of all crafts, be it music's Mozart, physics's Einstein, mathematics's Gauss, etc. all had IQ in the 160 range, as well as all the modern and semi-modern masters.

Hard work and effort are important in many aspects of life, but less so in STEM, and being a master in any area requires innate talent, which is another word for IQ.

I don't think it is as fixed/determinant as you think. Many of these mathematical, philosophical, and creative masters that society reveres were home-schooled. They also tended to have parents who were themselves intellectuals. This could reinforce the IQ argument (high IQ parents = high IQ children) but it could also mean the child was fortunate enough to have parents knowledgeable of educational methods more efficient than the local public school. In the grand scheme of things, determination, discipline, and passion matter far more than IQ. High IQ basically means you can probably understand a problem more quickly but it doesn't mean you will have the skills or traits necessary to remain with the problem long enough to provide anything of value to society. That said, when an 8-year-old is studying calculus, no one can deny innate talent is definitely playing a role in that.

>why? Why did they and not we?
Chance environmental factors pressuring them into doing those activities from an early time in their life which then then gave them the ability to find passion or meaning to keep doing it, such as parental influence or those activities just happening to be the only things they had available to do.
Mozart's father famously taught him from an extremely young age and focused all his education as a child into music. The work caused the skill, the environment caused the work.

There is also chance that you will, by complete accident, happen across things that put you ahead in skill. Put enough kids in front of a piano and a few will pretty quickly figure out a few chords that sound good when played sequentially. Not by any supposed talent, not by skill, but by chance. This can happen in any skill too, math, physics, tennis, chess. And if this happens to a kid it's probably going to give them some really positive vibes and make them think pretty highly about doing the activity in the future, leading to more practice more frequently.
Intelligence is often described as ability to recognize patterns, but what if your actions as a novice, maybe not having had the best basic education in the topic, just happen to never produce desirable patterns you can pick up on? What if you just happen to never press the keys that sound good together?

>They could not compete with gifted children.
How do you know they were gifted by some mysterious force and they didn't just happen to excel from chance or environment factors? How do you know they practiced the same length of time as the 'gifted', in the same intervals, and had the same quality of practice, same quality of education, with the same intent to get better? How do you know they were taught the same things in the same order, and were corrected properly when they were doing things in inefficient ways?
How do you know this result was only from built in talent and not anything else?

So in your world there is no brain, no biological factor in intelligence. Mostly everything is magic, and anyone can become anything with enough hard work.

Luckily, there is a myriad of studies to counter you, which I am sure you will read.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612457952
msu.edu/~ema/HambrickEtAl13.pdf :
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf
gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf

Telling mediocre people they just didn't work hard enough is naive at best and cruel at worst.

If, for one moment, you were to stop being a faggot and trying to make yourself special you would see that, in general, your greats tend to come from rich, highly educated families.

You site IQs for dead people who had no clue what the fuck an IQ even was. You're a faggot. Moreover, all three people you listed were children of highly educated and or rich parents.

You site these fucking social science studies as if they're gospel. Faggot.

Is there innate intelligence? I think so, but you're so bent on painting a black and white picture that you brush everything else aside. Most people in this world are intelligent, but lack the means or knowledge to develop the things we associate with intelligence.

This undergrad fag thinks it takes talent to get through stem.. LOLOLOL.. Work ethic is the most important part.. People who solve huge problems rarely do so in a stroke of genius.. They are generally in the right place at the right time--e.g. Einstein.

Gauss was a master, Mozart was smart, and what we would call today, hot-boxed by his father.

long story short: they were smart, but environment is what allowed them to thrive.

>all three people you listed were children of highly educated and or rich parents.
>Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss was born on 30 April 1777 in Brunswick (Braunschweig), in the Duchy of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (now part of Lower Saxony, Germany), as the son of poor working-class parents.[3] His mother was illiterate and never recorded the date of his birth, remembering only that he had been born on a Wednesday, eight days before the Feast of the Ascension, which itself occurs 39 days after Easter. Gauss later solved this puzzle about his birthdate in the context of finding the date of Easter, deriving methods to compute the date in both past and future years.[4] He was christened and confirmed in a church near the school he attended as a child.[5]
>Gauss's intellectual abilities attracted the attention of the Duke of Brunswick,[2] who sent him to the Collegium Carolinum (now Braunschweig University of Technology), which he attended from 1792 to 1795, and to the University of Göttingen from 1795 to 1798. While at university, Gauss independently rediscovered several important theorems.[8]

Here in Gauss's life you see an emergent pattern:
>born to poor uneducated parents
>whether by mutation or dormant genetics, have supreme innate talent
>easily climb the ladder of society, securing capital and education for later generations
So you see, Gauss was not born to rich or educated parents, but his own talent definitely did make him rich and educated, securing future generations. Many rich and educated families had a patriarch like this who with a certain innate talent started it all and gave them superior genetics as well. Of course those genetics might be diluted or mutated through the generations but the education and wealth remain.

So rather than wealth and education promoting intelligence, it is more accurate to say those with talent have the ability to be wealthy and educated, those without don't, and those wealthy and educated aren't necessarily intelligent.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
>journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612457952
On the heritability of IQ. No shit. What time of day I wake up at is heritable. Environment is heritable. Does that mean I can't change what time of day I wake up at? Too bad measured cognitive ability being heritable has nothing to do with how much the environment affects skill acquisition.

>msu.edu/~ema/HambrickEtAl13.pdf
This is purely about 'amount of deliberate practice.' That is a tiny portion of what I was talking about, and it's results fit neatly in line with it. Quality of practice + amount of practice + practice occurring at regular intervals + how much you give a shit will add up to the fastest skill gains. If I spent 400 hours practicing driving on my own using my feet to control the wheel and my hands to control the pedals while doing a handstand and you practice normally with The Stig for 200 hours, who do you think is going to be the better driver?

>udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
A quite well known and funny response defending a book loved by racists, and cringed at by academics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence#Response_and_criticism

>unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf
This is about people scoring on GMA tests, which often include questions about information you must be previously educated on. No shit people who can score better on that test perform better at jobs. This is unrelated to anything I said anyway, because it isn't about environment affecting skill acquisition.

>gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
>The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades.
Did you get this off /pol/ and fail to even read it? It supports my position. Not yours.

You sound like a masochistic brainlet who's trying to some justify why they aren't where they want to be.

Yes, innate talent exists. Stop making it out to be more than it is. The average person can compensate for what they lack in "innate talent" with above average determination.

>On the heritability of IQ. No shit. What time of day I wake up at is heritable. Environment is heritable. Does that mean I can't change what time of day I wake up at? Too bad measured cognitive ability being heritable has nothing to do with how much the environment affects skill acquisition.

That doesn't change the fact that some areas require cognitive ability. Yes, you can get PhD with 100 IQ by studying for many years. No, you won't become more intelligent by studying because IQ is static especially by adulthood and you need fluid intelligence to come up with new theories in your field of choice.

I guess it depends on what you mean by compensate. Can the average person become an engineer with above average determination? Yes. Can they become a NASA engineer? No.

terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/

>you need fluid intelligence to come up with new theories in your field of choice
This must be why academics only publish until their mid 30s. Oh, wait.

People with higher IQ and cognitively tasking occupations retain their fluid intelligence much better than those with lower IQ.

What's your IQ?

95. Why?

It's not 95. Also, you need to listen to Stephen Hawking and do something more productive with your time than discussing IQ.

>IQ is static especially by adulthood and you need fluid intelligence to come up with new theories in your field of choice.
No. You would have be to stupid to believe that intelligence cannot change.
pnas.org/content/109/2/425.abstract
pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full.pdf
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03395755

>pnas.org/content/109/2/425.abstract
Not peer reviewed, small sample size, not employed by any government, results can be reasoned by training on questions similar to the ones on the IQ test given. Otherwise, it's the same as any other brain training- worthless.

>pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full.pdf
>dual n-back
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000610?via=ihub
gwern.net/docs/dnb/2010-seidler.pdf
his.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:424076/FULLTEXT01
etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_1?0
ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/54/
psych.wisc.edu/postlab/posters/bornali_cns_2012.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3368385/
scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Redick-et-al-final-JEPG.pdf
gwern.net/docs/dnb/2016-minear.pdf

>link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03395755
>IQ is environmental
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016339
jneurosci.org/content/29/7/2212

I'm from Europe and i've never heard of IQ in academic contexts. I feel like IQ is some sort of excuse to give up on reaching greatness.

>Telling mediocre people they just didn't work hard enough is naive at best and cruel at worst.
edgelord

IQ isn't discussed enough.

It's laughable.

Despite IQ being the most effective measurement of general ability ever concieved we don't even, for instance, have studies of the average intelligence of elite universities.

Our lack of interest in IQ is hampering our understanding of the intelligence required to do certain tasks on average.

Supposing that we found for example the average IQ at Cambridge was 130, we could come to expect that in principle a kid with that score could, with reasonable ease achieve that standard of excellence academically, it would give them something to strive for.

You have low IQ.
People would train in IQ tests if it had any sway in their life.

You have low IQ if you think it works that way.

That's like saying using a dipstick to check your cars oil will make it run better, that's not the point, the point is to test what's going on rather than to improve anything.

What if Gauss sparkled his passion on the day he solved that school problem and proceeded to work on that ? I mean, his main quirk was to see things differently and he combined this with hard work ?

There's a book called "Outliers" with a few chapters about this
"Natural talent" exists, but be VERY careful about ascribing the fruits of hard work to mere talent

This is true.

The only people who disagree with this are generally low iq folk who want to beleive thag hard work will take them beyond the stars.

Its like saying any person could become an nfl player if he just trains enough.

Its kind of annoying that people believe otherwise

>Friday, I had a student from Somalia smile and ask, "So it's not true that white people are smarter than black Africans? They just get more chances to read?" Imagine my pleasure when I could respond, "YES! That's correct. You are just as smart as any white kid in this school. It's just that some of them have been reading for years and you are just getting started."

Not /pol/, but if this is what people get from this book then it can't be worth all that much.

Let's be logical here rather than desperately try to stick to what we want to be true.
IQ has been shown to be mostly static, genetic, good indicator of general intelligence, academic success, job performance and financial security. The more significant impact someone leaves on the academic world, the more innovative and technological the business they run, the higher their IQ generally is.

The solution here is not to simply ignore the implications of this, but rather to put much more funding into neuroscience so we can finally figure out exactly how the brain works, what precisely intelligence is, and hopefully develop a way to raise all races and learning disabled children to a baseline intelligence, if not the entire human race to maximum intelligence as allowed by the brain.

People can morph and become more intelligent. Our capacities are virtually limitless.

Wanna share your findings with the academic world? Because decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars still have yet to find a way to make people more intelligent.

When people say that talented people worked hard they seem to not realize that the ability to work hard is a talent in itself. A math genius doesn't have to force himself to study math and keep himself from checking imageboards, playing video games or watching the latest tv show. Can you even call it hard work when they enjoy it and do it purely out of intrinsic motivation rather than external motivation or a sense of obligation?

We don't like the concepts of the determinism of talent and intelligence because our society is predicated on egalitarianism and tabula rasa. We often explain away our own natural ability as hard work because then it can be understood within the reigning paradigm.

It is deterministic from a certain standpoint that you won't ever be great without innate talent \ intelligence, but you can still probably secure yourself financially with hard work.

Most undergrad STEM degrees that can land you a good job can be achieved by a person of average intelligence. It may require the best studying techniques, optimal physical and mental health, as well as a ludicrous amount of studying, but that's what hard work is.

However, will that person of average intelligence be able to get a graduate degree, land a job in a prestigious company, or leave a big impact in the technological world? No.

how?
I think everybody in this board is interested

If he really knew how he'd win the noble prize. There are currently two companies which have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in them whose purpose is to try to understand the brain and intelligence and we're not likely to have anything by the next 10 years.

Ah yes, using one of the greatest mathematicians ever as an example. I'm a math PhD student. The best students in my class are the ones who spend every waking minute thinking about math. Most of us are just fine with being average though and work 50-60 hours a week.

>Gladwell "I prefer fantasy over facts"

See >Why did they and not we? The truth is: because they had the ability, the IQ, to succeed and thus enjoy these intellectually stimulating areas of interest, whereas others had no such ability, grew frustrated at the amount of work they had to give for mediocre results, and played carelessly with other children to attain the same level of pleasure with less effort.

If they couldn't think every waking second about math, they wouldn't.

Also
religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf
>Harmon found that the average Ph.D. student scored 130.8, which Eysenck (1979: 96) claims is an IQ of “about 125” (in fact, 123).
>Math Ph.D. students scored 138 (IQ: 128)
So 98% of the population can't get a math PhD. Not exactly average but I guess from your perspective 130 isn't smart enough to not be called average.

You're citing IQ which is a terrible metric of intelligence. I fucking suck at non math STEM work. I couldn't even get a BS in engineering (I had to change majors).

Your personal anecdote, which could have been influenced by a billion variables, does not mean IQ is a terrible metric of intelligence. In fact, it has proven itself an excellent metric of intelligence in the absolute majority of cases.

Please cite your sources. Most psychologists laugh at the idea of using IQ as a metric.

>Most psychologists laugh at the idea of using IQ as a metric.

So, what, we're just lying now?

>All masters have done their craft obsessively for large portions of their life
Is this a joke? The world of STEM is filled with people whose brilliance was apparent very early. Sure they generally work a long time and keep being productive, but we didn't wait till he was 50 to know that Von Neumann was a genius.

Late bloomers are, by comparison, the exception.

there's no such a thing as IQ, if you believe in it you are honestly a brainlet

This.
>thar are now mirekal poopill
-Sir Richard Feynman, IQ of 75, invented what we know today as Physics through hard work and effort alone

>anecdote influenced by a billion variables
>but IQ determines everything

>implying IQ is heritable
>implying IQ matters
Pseudo-scientific racist bullshit has no place in todays society

>he's not even trying anymore

IQ is not based on science