[3pt14159]

Please don't call me that. I really believe any 11 year old could learn what I did with parents like mine.

When I compare the skill involved with something like violin versus the skill that's needed to validate HTML forms with JavaScript or creating an application in Visual Basic, I really do not believe that people that happened to study software at a young age happen to be geniuses just because they did. Yes I'm smart, but I really believe that this path could be open to anyone that age if they have the interest and I think the internet has unlocked many people that have learned the same skills without the credentials.

[nomel]

I used to have this mindset, but then I had a small stroke and lost significant IQ points. I slowly, but never fully, gained them back over two years. I realized that the ease that I saw/see solutions, compared to others, wasn't just related to the time I put into thinking about them. Much of it came for free, in what I can describe as the length and number of the tendrils reaching out to explore whatever "problem space".

I no longer believe that "anyone with an interest" can be at the same level as someone that can just see the answers, with little effort. Some people have fewer/shorter tendrils.

This has definitely changed the way I interact with people. I used to get frustrated when people, who I thought should be able to understand, couldn't. Now I realize that they just can't as easily. They need that picture drawn out for them, and even then, they'll never see the nuances or perceive the textures of the problem, unless you point it out to them.

I think I'm lucky for being born with the mind that I have. It has made my life easy, pulling me out of poverty, with a mostly addictive enjoyment in what I do. I think you're probably luckier than you realize.

[Cogito]

The way I talk about this is to frame what people call intelligence as the combination of memory (+ actual memories) and comprehension.

Your ability to 'just see the answers', in this framing, stems from having a lot of data points readily available and the ability to combine them together quickly.

There are definitely people who are better at remembering things, and piecing multiple ideas together quickly, but these are also skills that can be trained. I think it's likely that a lot of 'intelligent' people are simply people who actively (though usually not consciously) train these skills because they enjoy them.

In the same way that many fit people don't have to think about exercising - they do it because they enjoy it or without any particular goal - there are people who see an interesting problem and immediately start thinking about how they might solve it or how it's similar to other problems they've seen.

In the same way that anyone can implement a training regime to improve their fitness I think anyone can implement a training regime to improve the number of data points available to them (read lots!) and their ability to combine that information together (solve puzzles, especially theoretical/not personally applicable ones like "how would I get that boat free?").

[cutemonster]

> I think it's likely that a lot of 'intelligent' people are simply people who actively (though usually not consciously) train these skills

I think it's odd how many people make up their own private theories about these things :-)

When there's research available about how intelligence "happens".

[Cogito]

You find it odd that people think about what intelligence is, or how it presents?

If you’ve got links/references/keywords for research that invalidates (or validates!) these ideas please share them, I’d love to look them up. From what I’ve read the idea “intelligence can be (at least in part) described as having knowledge and being able to apply that knowledge to new problems” is a well trodden one.

I haven’t seen much on the idea that some people may be predisposed to engaging with stimulating situations, so anything you have on that topic would be highly appreciated. I have seen writings on how a stimulating environment is important, and on how encouraging engagement can be effective (for example asking questions of children and allowing them to answer, vs answering for them).

[edit] In my original post I should probably have written “is to frame a lot of what people call intelligence as” - I definitely don’t think this is all intelligence but I do think it has a significant role in what the gp was talking about, this ability to see answers quickly.

[cutemonster]

> [edit] In my original post I should probably have written “is to frame a lot of what people call intelligence as” ...

Ok then i understand better what you mean.

Actually there's a word for that type of intelligence:

Crystallized intelligence.

And I had another type of intelligence in mind:

Fluid intelligence.

I think we spoke past each other (or I spoke past you) thinking about different things.

Anyway, one of those, one can improve eg by reading, getting life experience. But the other one, is fixed (from what I've read) once one is grown up.

If you want to, you could websearch for those words. And also, wikipedia has a section about intelligence and inheritance (hint: life is unfair).

> I have seen writings on how a stimulating environment is important, and on how encouraging engagement can be effective (for example asking questions of children and allowing them to answer, vs answering for them).

That sounds great :-)

From what I've read, those things do work (!), when one is a kid / young. And from what I've read, it also prevents the brain from deteriorating, when one is old (using one's brain reduces the risk for dementia).

(Thanks for the reply)

[replwoacause]

I appreciated this insight, thanks.

[ajfjrbfbf]

From the article:

> everyone seemed to think I was smarter than I believed I was. I feared I might fail miserably and finally prove how wrong they were about me

I can totally relate to that. Once everybody told you you're a genius, the pressure not to fail is incredible.

I started programming at 8. I got next to no help from my parents or my teachers, until the time I entered college, and by that point I felt I knew as much as the professors, sometimes more. I always avoided talking about programming, since that would get a me more genius calls on top of what my grades got me. And it doesn't help with making friends. Over the years I had maybe one or two friends who knew about it. Few would've believe me if I had told them what I could do.

I feel like there's nothing special about the path I took. I feel like anyone would be able to achieve the same knowledge I did given enough work and support. I must have spent thousands of hours programming in my teens. What nobody seem to realize is that the genius label is wrong, what they really should have told me was that I was "passionate". Anyone who is passionate enough can become a master.

[visarga]

> I must have spent thousands of hours programming in my teens.

That's what I think about when I hear people complaining about gatekeeping in our field. The books are open, the courses are there, interesting and useful applications abound. Given the same level of effort I think much of the difference between social groups would vanish.

[ZephyrBlu]

I don't know what the university courses entailed. I'm basing "genius" on my knowledge of the current Computer Science curriculum. If you were doing CS courses at age 11 I do think you must have genius level intelligence.

If it was more practically-orientated, then I agree with you :).