Do you have any experience teaching, interacting with or mentoring 14-18 year olds that makes you confident some small minority of them can do this? If you please give details.
Take someone like Laura Deming as an example. She got with 14 into MIT and was raising her fund when she was 18. From people with whom I have spoken more personally I would expect that people with 150-160 IQ
I have mixed feelings on this. I have mentored ~5 undergraduates in the past 4 years and observed many others, and their research productivity varies enormously. How much of that is due to IQ vs other factors I really have no idea. My personal feeling was most of the variability was due to life factors like the social environment (family/friends) they were ensconced in and how much time that permitted them to focus on research.
My impression from TAing physics for life scientists for two years was that a large number felt they were intrinsically bad at math. That’s really bad! We need to be spreading more growth mindset ideas, not the idea that you’re limited by your IQ. Or at the very least, the idea that math doesn’t have to come naturally or be easy for you to be a scientist or engineer. I struggled with math my entire way through undergrad and my PhD. If the drive I developed as a child to become a scientist wasn’t so strong, I’m sure I would have dropped out.
My feeling is we are more bottlenecked on great engineers than sciences. [Also, the linear model (science → invention → engineering/innovation) is wrong!] Also, we should bring back inventors—that should be a thing again.
I think it would be awesome if some day 50% of people were engineers and inventors. People with middling IQ can still contribute a lot! Maybe not to theoretical physics, but to many other areas! We hear a lot of gushing things about scientific geniuses, especially on this site and I think we discount the importance of everyday engineers and also people like lab techs and support staff, which are increasingly important as science becomes more multidisciplinary and collaborative.
Do you have any experience teaching, interacting with or mentoring 14-18 year olds that makes you confident some small minority of them can do this? If you please give details.
Take someone like Laura Deming as an example. She got with 14 into MIT and was raising her fund when she was 18. From people with whom I have spoken more personally I would expect that people with 150-160 IQ
I have mixed feelings on this. I have mentored ~5 undergraduates in the past 4 years and observed many others, and their research productivity varies enormously. How much of that is due to IQ vs other factors I really have no idea. My personal feeling was most of the variability was due to life factors like the social environment (family/friends) they were ensconced in and how much time that permitted them to focus on research.
My impression from TAing physics for life scientists for two years was that a large number felt they were intrinsically bad at math. That’s really bad! We need to be spreading more growth mindset ideas, not the idea that you’re limited by your IQ. Or at the very least, the idea that math doesn’t have to come naturally or be easy for you to be a scientist or engineer. I struggled with math my entire way through undergrad and my PhD. If the drive I developed as a child to become a scientist wasn’t so strong, I’m sure I would have dropped out.
My feeling is we are more bottlenecked on great engineers than sciences. [Also, the linear model (science → invention → engineering/innovation) is wrong!] Also, we should bring back inventors—that should be a thing again.
I think it would be awesome if some day 50% of people were engineers and inventors. People with middling IQ can still contribute a lot! Maybe not to theoretical physics, but to many other areas! We hear a lot of gushing things about scientific geniuses, especially on this site and I think we discount the importance of everyday engineers and also people like lab techs and support staff, which are increasingly important as science becomes more multidisciplinary and collaborative.