Hacker News Reader

Comment by 4gotunameagain | Hacker News Reader

Getting older, sometimes it can be so tough to accept the fact that people a fraction of your age achieve things you never will.

Given the extreme connectivity of the present, we are also exposed to brilliant minds with incredible capabilities, making us (me at least) feel even more incapable..

I guess it is a lesson for humility.

Good job Daniel, you show us !

View on HN

Tom Lehrer once said: "It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years."

More Lehrerisms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Was_the_Year_That_Was

Not to downplay any of Daniel’s accomplishment but sometimes it isn’t a “fair” comparison when others started younger with more resources. His father is a distinguished professor of mathematics and his mother is a professor of mathematics. When you have that sort of resources available at a young age and advanced training you’ll probably accomplish more sooner than someone of similar IQ without those resources who started later

There are thousands of mathematicians in the US. I am sure many have kids. How many of those kids do even a fraction of what Daniel did even when having every possible advantage? Today, young people have assess to more resources than ever, yet talent is one of those things that resists this trend of egalitarianism seem elsewhere. More resources means that the super-talented will pull way ahead of the untalented or only moderately talented.

To be honest I care more about the high iq kids interested in math who come from poor or working class families that either won’t be identified or will be identified but not much can be done for them given the lack of resources. Plus this doesn’t negate that someone of a similar IQ may accomplish less / seem less impressive at an early age due to such disadvantages.

Resources also include parental encouragement, not being bullied, not having to do stuff to get by that isn’t delving into deep work, not trying to fight boring school lessons and exams in subjects not of interest, no pressure to shape your studies to get a job. These are not universal.

I wonder how many more Srinivasa Ramanujan‘s died in poverty in a rural village?

Maybe there’s a path now for these kids.

I see lots of users here hammering on about IQ - but that's just one factor.

The kid grew up with two mathematicians, so I'm sure they knew how to get him in the right direction. Kids also tend to value whatever their parents are doing.

And not to mention that most kids have all the time in the world to do what they enjoy - and rarely have other concerns.

I'm a musician, and grew up playing my instrument from 4 to 8 hours a day, every day, almost all year round. It was pretty much the only thing I did between age 10 to 18. I had very supportive family and mentors, and got lots of chances others at my age did not.

Naturally, I met a lot of other talented kid. Some child prodigies.

One thing I have noticed afterwards: Being at such a high level as a kid - does not necessarily mean you'll go on to do great things later in life. Some kids just grow out of it, lose interest and motivation, and - well - life often just happens. Even among the most talented, only a small % of them end up doing remarkable stuff later on.

The set of things you will never achieve is infinite compared to the set of things you will, best to stay focused on the latter and enjoy your life. Unless of course you prefer drinking from an infinite well-spring of misery.

I celebrate people who achieve memorable milestones like this or build something that revolutionizes the world - but there are a plethora of different ways to live life. For me, as long as you're happy and you're putting more happiness out into the world than you're consuming then you're achieving a pretty damn good life. We're not all responsible for the entire world - as long as you're leaving your little corner of it better than you found it then good on you.

It's not enough to make the world better or be happier, a lot of people also want acclaim and recognition. Why do so many people apply to Ivy League schools when 50-100 ranking schools can also provide a good education? Status is necessarily scarce.

This may just be the odd musing of a mid-thirty year old but acclaim and recognition feel pretty worthless to me. Chasing individuality through others' approval will always be more difficult than just accepting yourself as yourself and being happy with that.

it's not like everyone can win the IQ lottery. Superior ability is unequally distributed.

people should measure themselves by how best they utilized their gifts and circumstances to live a life that they are happy with. No point in comparing yourself to some kid who probably inherited an amazing mathematical brain through no conscious effort, moral superiority etc.. of his own.

Ability to maximize your own talent is a talent in itself.

Why is it tough?

This may be worth reflecting on [0].

[0] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3036.htm

Yeah, I have no problem admitting that there are people much smarter, more talented, better looking, etc than I am. The day that I assume I'm the top of whatever category is a sad sad day, as I must be the only one left.

Either that or you have narrowed the field so much that you are the only one even doing what you do. (you might sometimes have a junior to help you, who then becomes the second best in the world)

Personally, I can claim, without a doubt, to be the world champion at writing this comment.

I think what really bugs me is that for some hobby I chose, there is a always someone who already achieved everything I could dream to achieve in my life.

Then I figured some hobbies are better suited for my use case. For example science is better suited for me. I somehow was never bothered by the fact that some geniuses in 19th century already knew enough math/physics that I could digest in my life. Science is infinite so however much knowledge someone gained, it's zero comparing to the total amount. I guess I need that kind of comfort to commit to something. Fossil collection is also a good one because every piece I collected is MINE and unique so I don't need to compare with someone else.

> I somehow was never bothered by the fact that some geniuses in 19th century already knew enough math/physics that I could digest in my life. Science is infinite so however much knowledge someone gained, it's zero comparing to the total amount.

I think this is important to consider. Anyone even cursorily interested in science can know (just via public information, libraries, etc.) so much more about "everything-except-very-specific-thing" than any of the 19th century geniuses who knew and understood so much about "very-specific-thing".

Ofc, the geniuses are ultimately the ones responsible for the advancement of the state of the art, but... there's also a lot to appreciate for the rest of us.

Yeah. I kinda feel like a medieval monk: we are all equal under God (in the case he is the Cosmos/Natural)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com