Of course, even if it doesn't require genius, making serious research contributions in mathematics does typically require many thousands of hours of training and hard work (usually in the form of a PhD) which most people are not going to dedicate their lives to. Given this, I really like Bill Thurston's perspective, from the famous essay "On proof and progress in mathematics" (http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404236), which is that proving new theorems is only a small part of the project of mathematics. The real goal is to increase humanity's mathematical understanding, which does not necessarily grow monotonically: there are plenty of results proved 100 years ago that are not known or understood by any currently living mathematician, thus have been "lost" to the mathematical community. And of course there are new people born every day who know no math as all, so understanding of mathematics will tend to decrease unless people actively work to sustain it. In this view, understanding and communicating mathematical insights is just as important and valid a part of the intellectual process as proving new theorems, and requires a different set of talents. Plenty of great researchers are not great communicators, and vice versa. (Terry Tao actually is an excellent writer, but again he's only one person and there's a ton of math out there to be shared). You may not know as much math as Terry Tao, but anyone on HN probably knows more than the vast majority of adults (the bar here is really low), and the world at this moment is certainly not suffering from a surplus of mathematical thinking. So whatever your background and abilities, there are almost certainly lots of useful ways to contribute.
Work hard and learn what you need to learn to do what you want to do. The rest should fall into place.
Some vanishingly small percentage of people are prolific geniuses. If you aren't, no real sense worrying about it! Just hang in there and keep learning and doing.
I mean, on one hand, it's rather inspiring to read about the amazing thing that another human is achieving. On the other hand, I can't help but feel ... helplessness, like whatever I do, it doesn't really matter (add on with the guilt of squandering my time, and wondering if I could ever have been that good).
When I was younger and have less (or no) ambitions, it was easy to brush off everytime a story like this comes up: well, they're genius, and ... so what? But interestingly, since I've learned that I might be able to do more than I thought I could, everytime I read a story like this, I just feel extremely mediocre, even pathetic of myself.
In leadership for example, do you think CEOs have the highest IQs in the company? How about Churchill, King, Lincoln? No doubt very smart people but relied just as much on other abilities.
What about the arts? How many of your favorite musicians or comedians are great at math? Arguably these abilities are orthogonal to what Tao can do, yet are clearly a form of genius.
The innateness/validity of EI is not yet settled but emotional intelligence enables people in ways that just are not possible with only pure problem solving prowess. How long would most math PhDs last as politicians, if they were somehow motivated to do so?
Speaking of motivation, how many IQ points past our own does someone of average ambition have to reach before we can't just out work them? Quite a few in my experience.
Five years is generally how long it takes to be noted as talented in something...so I guess patience is another virtue.
> The brain is surprisingly plastic... all the way into 40s and beyond
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and it is probably factual. But it reads like 40s is "advanced". What should we consider the other 50% of our lives?
I'm in my early 30s, so maybe I am sensitive. But then early 20s is not far from early 30s is not far from ...
Alan Kay had a quote, something like "perspective matters much than intelligence".