Re:Beyond the 10,000 Hour Rule: Richard Hamming and the Mess...
by loewenskind on Friday August 13, 2010 @04:35AM
(#1600401)
>We observe that intellectual performance, as far as has ever been measured, varies tremendously by individual.
In the ways we have measured, yes. The issue here, I think, is that person A who excels to extreme levels in e.g. math doesn't excel at everything. In fact, the better he is at math the worse he might be in different subjects (Einstein example). So when we measure how well people do aren't we just measuring how good they are at passing our tests?
There does seem to be correlation for people who manage to do well at our system and people who end up successful. I'm just not convinced this is the whole story.
We observe that intellectual performance, as far as has ever been measured, varies tremendously by individual. Basically we have a curve of observed intellectual performance.
We also know that we can improve teaching methods. Of this there is no dispute. We can also surmise that the optimal set of teaching methods, applied and distributed in the optimal manner, will influence observed intellectual performance. We can make another curve of how far it's theoretically possible to improve someone's intellectual performance.
We have no idea what the shape of this second curve is. Of the infinite possible shapes it could have, how bloody likely is it that it's exactly the complement of the first curve?