[diffeomorphism]

Caveat here is that "talent" and "dedication" is linked to speed at least in the beginning. For instance, any student can learn calculus given enough time and advice even starting from scratch. However, the syllabus wants all this to happen in one semester.

This gives you vicious and virtuous cycles: Students' learning speed increases with time and past success. So "talented" students learn quickly and have extra time to further explore and improve, leading to further success. Students who struggle with the time constraint are forced to take shortcuts like memorizing "magic formulas" without having time to really understand. Trying to close that gap is very hard work.

[drbig]

Thank you for the insight that academic (in a very broad sense) bulk-fixed-time approach does in fact produce both of the cycles, and the gap indeed only widens with time (speaking from personal experience, especially from my life as an undergrad student).

Reminds me of my personal peeve that "studying" should not be "being taught", studying is pursuit of understanding, "being taught" is what happens in primary school (and I'm aware I'm simplifying here).

[blackbear_]

I would say that you could generalize this even further outside of education. A few early successes in life can greatly accelerate one's trajectory, while early failures could set one many years back. And this happens independently of whether those events are due to skill or luck.

[jvanderbot]

Indeed, speed is often read as "smarts" whereas I would maintain it's much more often "preparation". We can't on one hand believe in the plasticity and retrainability of the mind, while simultaneously believing that speed is something only a few are born with. On the nature/nurture scale, I think it's 20/80 or so - but prodigies and geniuses have an interest that keeps them thinking and learning 10x or 100x more than other kids, and a little bump that lets them get started easier and therefore much earlier.

This sets them up for fantastic success very quickly. [1] shows a great example of this.

I'm fond of saying "You can do anything you want, but wanting is the hard part", because to truly be a grandmaster, genius-level mathematician, olympic athlete, etc, requires a dedication and amount of preparation that almost nobody can manage. Starting late, with emotional baggage, kids, and having to spend 5 years relearning how to learn? Forget it.

1. https://danielkarim.com/how-to-become-a-genius-the-polgar-ex...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> I'm fond of saying "You can do anything you want, but wanting is the hard part", because to truly be a grandmaster, genius-level mathematician, olympic athlete, etc, requires a dedication and

I was having a problem agreeing with this subthread, and I have you to thank for putting it into words that I can finally formulate my disagreement against.

Have you never met one of those people for whom they did not need to "want"? They could literally phone it in and still do better than anyone else, no matter how dedicated they were. Even should practice/study be necessary for them, they benefited from it to some absurd proportion that I couldn't even guess to quantify. I've known more than one of these people.

I think most believe they don't exist for two reasons. The first is the ridiculous number of television shows and movies that depict motivation as being the key to success. We're just inundated with the (unsupported by evidence) that this is the means to extraordinary genius. Second, I would say that this is the most comforting theory. "Why yes, I could have been a gifted whatever or a talented something-or-other if I had put the time in, but I chose this other thing instead."

Maybe some would say we all need to believe this, that a society that doesn't believe in it is harsher or more unkind.

[jvanderbot]

I think I have met those folks. Maybe not. And you're welcome!

They're just quick. But the ones I've met, at least, are quick to make associations. When I really dig and ask them to explain themselves or a concept, they usually make analogies to things they know, but I don't. Then I have to go learn that thing. Then they try the analogy again, but I haven't fully learned it from years of making analogies about it.

Years of grad school experience was painful like this, until I got to a point 10 years after grad school, after a PhD, and well into research, that I "just got" things (in my subfield) as well. It's these experiences that made me feel that it's 80% preparation and perspiration (both of which are dominated by time), and 20% "other" mythology. Don't get me wrong, that 20% is what makes a 2 year old read earlier than others, and getting started reading at 2 (and continuing it!) for 4 years before starting school will make you light years ahead of your peers. The same goes for chess, math, etc etc. There is something legendary about Oppenheimer learning enough dutch in 6 weeks to deliver a lecture. Or perhaps learning to translate his lecture and memorizing it. Who knows.

Do we really believe there's a magical "genius" such that they can do anything? No, so what are the limits to their genius? The limits are defined by what they are a genius at. This is a tautological definition.

I'm not saying "Anyone at any time can become a genius at anything". I'm saying "If you take a kid, start early, and cultivate them just right so that you have time to realize compounding effects, - you can let them grow into basically anything" (probablistically speaking - there are learning disabilities and physical issues etc).

[StefanBatory]

> I think most believe they don't exist for two reasons.

I add third (okay, 2b) - because the pain of coming up with the fact other people are better than you at a deep, fundamental level is too overwhelming.

[stonemetal12]

Bobby Fisher won his first US Championships at 14 against people who had been playing chess longer than he had been alive. Suggesting they didn't want it more, or practice more than some kid is silly.

"We can't on one hand believe in the plasticity and retrainability of the mind, while simultaneously believing that speed is something only a few are born with."

Sure we can, the initial orientation of neurons differs between people, so some people need less "plasticity and retrainability" to be good at a task. Plasticity is physical characteristic like height and varies between people.

Initial speed usually isn't that important, but speed of learning is important and makes the difference between possible and impossible within a human lifetime.

[jvanderbot]

I think there's a probabalistic argument I'm making that's more in line with the article.

Yes - there will be 10x-ers. And that group will have a 10x-er iside it, and so on given exponential dropoff of frequency of talent. Bobby Fisher is a few std dev above even the best, perhaps.

Generally speaking, "You can do anything you want, but wanting (enough, and naturally) is the hardest part" might need a three standard deviation limit.

Have you heard the phrase: Being average among those who practice makes you 9X% among the population? I think that's what I'm saying - you can be a top performer if you dedicate yourself, especially early enough, but almost nobody will.

[matwood]

I agree with you. I don’t think I’m naturally gifted at much (I’m just average), but I was taught stubborn hard work pretty early on. Unfortunately it took me until my 20s to figure out I could be athletic if I applied that hard work. I could also be good at programming doing the same. I’ve met people who are truly gifted and it’s amazing, but I’m pretty decent at the things I worked hard at.

[hilbert42]

"Initial speed usually isn't that important, but speed of learning is important and makes the difference between possible and impossible within a human lifetime."

Likely so, but is suggest that personality, drive and motivation are also very important factors. I know from experience that stuff I had little interest in as a youngster and that I've still little in I still know little about.

Yes, my interests have grown and broadened over the years but simply I regard some stuff so irrelevant to my life that it's not worth a second thought and I am much better off applying my limited number of neurons to matters of greater importance and enjoyment.

Of course, no one has the luxury of just learning about what one finds interesting and or enjoyable, life's knocks and experiences along with utilitarian-like imperatives force one to learn stuff they'd rather not know about.

[1980phipsi]

I find it is good to go back to things you struggled with in the past and come at them with a new and broader understanding.