This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
nah, it's not the tutoring or hyper-specialization, but rather the IQ. Some of the most gifted mathematicians alive were not necessarily precocious at math, but by being so smart, were able to make rapid progress despite showing inclination at math later in life, such as in their teens or twenties. Ed Witten is an an example of this. Von Neumann was hardly the only Hungarian Jew who had an early start, but by being so smart, far outpaced his other 'Martian' peers. We need to find a way to raise IQ . Sure, Magnus Carlsen got an early start, but his IQ is also legit higher than probably most or all his competitors too.
his IQ is way higher too. IQ vs ability is not linear, so an extra 40 points is not being 40% better than someone with an IQ of 100 but many magnitudes smarter.
Again, i don't think our understanding of consciousness and cognition is nearly as good as we like to pretend it is and and this sort of fetishization of Goodheart's Law sticks out to me as an obvious pitfall.
Is an extra 10 - 20 points over the median result in a significant advantage over said median? Sure. But i would also caution against reading too much into it. My alma mater may not be as prestigious as Oxford or Cambridge but it is reasonably prestigious (im confident that you'll have heard of it) and having pursued a degree and subsequently made my career in mathematics I've had a lot of dealings with both precocious kids and MENSA-types and can tell you that IQ does not neccesarily translate into intelligent behavior or cognitive function. The Sheldon Cooper archetype exists and they tend to be far less fun or functional in IRL than they are portrayed as on TV. I have nothing to base this on aside from my own observation but my impression is that there is an inflection point where (to the degree that IQ is real) the upsides of "number go up" become overshadowed by the downsides of nuerousises, mental illness, addiction, Et Al. I think that the thing set a lot of the "great geniuses" a part is not thier raw intelligence as much as it is thier ability to be botb highly intelligent and highly functional at the same time.
more like 50+ points above the mean , and IQ is necessary but not sufficient
If its not sufficient, how do you prove that it's neccesary?
I'm not the commenter you were replying to, but trivially, if all people with trait C (prodigies, 10x engineers, etc) exhibit both trait A and trait B, while people with only A or B do not exhibit trait C, you could say that trait B is necessary but not sufficient.
In this example, you could say that trait C (prodigy) requires traits A (IQ, intelligence, whatever) and trait B (conscientiousness, focus) or whatever trait D (open-mindedness to explore new research avenues, low neuroticism to avoid some of the pitfalls of high IQ, etc).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The evidence on chess and IQ is mixed, with several studies finding no correlation between IQ and Elo within players. However, this meta analysis found huge correlations (~0.25). Still, lots of room for other factors. Many top GM's are adamant that chess players aren't particularly smart. Perhaps they're all being humble but it makes a lot of sense. Chess ability is comparatively narrow compared to IQ testing. Magnus has the best brain for chess, but much of that might not generalize to IQ. (iirc Magnus has given interviews where he tries to dispel the notion that he is a genius, stating that he was never at the top of the class academically).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593
agree, Among top chess plyers in general, a super-high IQ is not that important , but to be among the absolutely best in such a crowded, competitive field, then IQ matters a lot, i would assume. CHess is not as g-loaded as math, but still g loaded to some extent given you need to memorize moves and think fast enough or ahead .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IQ is an absolute requirement, but no amount of IQ will lead you to being a chess great if you started the skill at 16. Ed Witten seems like a bizarre anomaly as far as STEM goes, and I wonder how much his father taught him physics as a child — it may be that he had some childhood expertise but momentarily decided to pursue journalism.
he is an outlier and his dad probably helped in some way. But other examples are Peter Scholze and June Huh. The former only became interested in math at 14, and then, boom, best in the world by 2010.
Are you sure about Scholze? I couldn’t find anything but this
And his parents were in STEM, likely teaching him at an earlier age than his specialized high school.
it's not like he started at 10 or earlier like Erdos or Tao. age 14 is late compared to those child prodigies. another example is Maryam Mirzakhani, who took up math in her mid teens, and then also went from 0 to 100 seemingly instantly, winning contests and such.
We don’t know if his interest in math began at 14, only that by 14 he started teaching himself college-level math. In Maryam’s case, she enrolled in a specialized math middle school, so she started focusing mostly on math at 11-12. Anyway, when I read that these prodigies started at ~11-14, I think that it’s sad that they didn’t start at 5. Surely if they started at 5 they would be even better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Magnus Carlsen at age 13 was substantially weaker than Kasparov; I suspect the notion they were equals comes from the fact they drew a rapid game, but such upsets like that aren't unheard of (and Kasparov beat him in their next encounter, knocking him out of the tournament).
I'm extremely dubious of this. What's your source?
Starting young (below 10 at a max, ideally below 8) is essential to eventually playing chess at the highest levels. There probably isn't a single player in top 100 who didn't start learning the game before this cut-of (and I suspect 90% of them achieved the GM title before they were 20). The chance to rapidly absorb thousands of patterns while your brain is still plastic is an opportunity you only get as a child. Anyone who's spent much time playing chess will know that children improve dramatically quicker than adults, primarily because they've still got the mental wiring to make great leaps in their understanding of the game in a very short time.
Magnus Carlsen was a prodigy in almost every regard, not just a chess prodigy. His spatial recognition and fluid memory abilities were very advanced at a young age, suggesting a very high full-scale-IQ, not just being specialized at chess.
From wiki:
Kasparov's IQ is widely cited as 135, which is good, but not that impressive. I would bet it's a lot lower than that of Magnus Carlsen.
They faced different competitors. Given how optimized chess has become, Magnus Carlsen faced harder opponents and a much deeper talent pool. In 2004, when he lost to Kasparov, Magnus was just 13. It would be another decade until he would become the world chess campion and hit the peak of his abilities. A more apt comparison would be adult Magnus vs Kasparov.
Carlsen has also benefited from the advances in theory and training methods that have occurred over the last few decades. If Kasparov were playing today and were able to take advantage of these resources he'd most likely be even better than he was at his peak.
That's pretty open debate among chess players with plenty of people taking either side. Neither is generally accepted by a majority of players to be more talented than the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link