Hacker News Reader

Comment by aptwebapps | Hacker News Reader

This is a useless nitpick. It's not a scientific treatise, it's a public service message to try to change people's behavior.

I don't believe for a second that the doctor believes that intelligence has no inherited component whatsoever. She is dealing with a problem in the real world using what tools she has at her disposal.

Edit: Responding jamesaguilar's and true_religion's point about the title. Yes, that's true. I had just read the article and the title wasn't in the forefront of my mind. But when you get a title like that, you simply can't know whether it is meant as a bald statement or rather as something to pique the interest (or as link bait, if you aren't feeling charitable). So, if you elect to click the link, read the article to find out!

View on HN

I don't know if it really qualifies as a nitpick to directly contradict the article's title.

He "directly contradicted" an article full of references to actual research, with a single personal anecdote.

I'm not even sure it proves what he thinks it proves. Is he inherently smarter than the rest of his family? Or just more motivated? Or more interested in technology? Is success in computer programming direct proof that someone is very smart? I think a lot of programmers take that as received wisdom, but again I'm not so sure.

Anyway, if a child is one of the rare born geniuses, talking to them a lot will not harm them, and it might feed their latent abilities. If a child is genetically normal, talking will help them too. There is no practical reason to object to this article.

I think we need to ignore titles.

HN doesn't allow changes to the title. People writing articles will chose a click-baity title.

All titles suck.

Minor nitpick: Very often editors pick the click-baity titles, not those writing the articles.

The purpose of an article's title is ONLY to get a reader to start reading the article. Journalism 101.

I think it qualifies if that's all you talk about. Correct the title, then move on to things that are actually interesting.

Public service announcements should at the very least not contain false information in their titles.

So we "simply can't know" whether the title should be taken at face value, but at the same time the parent's point is a "useless nitpick" because it's irrelevant to the main point of the article. Nice.

If we "simply can't know" what the point is, then how do you decide what's relevant?

Yarg. I _knew_ I shouldn't have included the 'useless nitpick' line as it was needlessly aggressive.

But to respond: No, not at the same time. As I said in the edit, the title slipped my mind. Without the title it came across as a useless nitpick, with the title it does not even if I find it an uninteresting avenue of discussion.

Exactly. This is one determinant of intelligence that we can impact, but it's not the sole determinant of intelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com