| Few notes. The whole discussion whether intelligence is born or made, misses the fact that motivation to work hard for years is unfrequent. Most people give up quickly, and are not able to commit themselves without immediate reward. I easily imagine a mathematican without great intelligence, yet with high motiviation and ability to stay focus for hours. I can't imagine a mathematican who is smart, yet is not able to concentrate. Another thing is that what seems to upset most people about genetic intelligence is limitation of our free will. It goes something like this: "I realize I want to become a mathematican and environment limits me; I can't afford this thought." The problem is that between born and made there is a lot of grey area. What if, for instance, you do not realize it? You might grew up in a suburbia environment that encourages you to become a MBA or a lawyer. If so, non-zero chances are you'd simply don't want to become a mathematican, or a quant. (no money, no chicks). Is your free will limited, or no? In different environment you'd dream about becoming an Erdos. You might think that you made the decision, while, actually, the socialization process made the decision, and if you want to change it, you have to overcome the defaults. A non-trivial task. I also feel that, besides the intelectual curiosity, there is something more behind this question. It seems, at least to me, that most people asking it, actually ask whether chances are their effort will be rewarded. There is nothing wrong with it. One wants to minimize her risks. If investment of 10 years would be known to give 0 output (here: becoming a great mathematican) in some cases (here: lack of genetic intelligence), then, under given circumstances, it doesn't make sense at all. The point is that intellectual work is highly non-linear and if there are any constant factors, they are highly more complicated than born vs made. |