You don't actually know this. I acknowledge it might be true but it also might not. How do you know what you're calling brilliance isn't a different kind of study, for example? Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life from a very early age and sought them out. With his local reputation among family, friends, school others brought them to him as well. He did inter-school stand-up math competitions, if I remember that story correctly, and described how he learned to "relax into the solution" not try to force it but look at it in a different way until it just all falls out and so on.

Then he also studied math and then won the Putnum. How would he have gone without doing all that "non-study" about problem solving and looking at problems from different ways and just doing math quite well? Maybe he was so brilliant he still would have won? I suspect not. How many others sitting for the Putnum had done similar amounts of the same quality work by way of preparation?

Genius? Or learned and honed? Both? In what proportions? Whatever I think about it is "Just like my opinion, man." Right?

> Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life

Yes, you tend to get good at what gives you a buzz, in a compounding way. But I expect 'buzz' isn't random, either: it'd make sense for personality formation to notice when you show talent at something valued by some of the people around you, and flip some motivational switches in your developing mind. This seems like a better bet for your genes than trying to engineer your motivation and talent towards a common target separately.

No. We do know this. We know cognitive ability varies between people. It's obvious to everyone who's competed with others in mental competitions, and it's born out by a century of psychological research.

You can't just train to win the Putnam if you don't have the talents. Have you ever sat and worked problems with someone exceptional in that area? Try it if you get the chance. The variation in ability will blow you away.

Disagreed. Look at the Polgar sisters for example.

Well if you consider him brilliant then perhaps you would believe him when he says that talent isn't nearly as important as studying.

Lots of people study really hard. Few go on to become Feynman.

Plenty of people are also brilliant and don't go on to become Feynman.

"Study" is also a pretty vague word, that could describe a lot of different activities. Lots of people study hard, buy how many follows the exact same process as Feynman ? Not every studying techniques are equally effective, the same is true for problem solving techniques. Not to say his genetics didn't have _any_ impact, but we don't know the extent of the impact it had