The most successful people I know are regular smart folks who have patience, and can get into deep focus mode / zone at-will.

The smartest people I know have 0 focus, but they can grasp insanely complex topics that are interesting to them super fast.

You're not strictly describing intelligence, you're also describing symptoms that relate to ADHD. I wonder if there's a bias to categorize someone as more intelligent based on the contrast between someone's ability to focus and their ability to grasp complex ideas quickly. I struggle severly with ADHD and notice it all of the time, in how people's perception of me changes when we end up on a topic I know well and enjoy talking about.

"there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things."

This is a huge problem in the dating market too. "Self improvement" implies that at one point one was a singificantly less high status individual... And that they are at risk of backsliding.

People who are naturally gifted or don't have to try have less risk of becoming unattractive later.

It's sexier, cooler, and more successful to be good at something without trying. I don't blame your kids.

    You can't wake up knowing new information. Everyone has to learn, the people who look talented just learned it earlier than everyone else.

Of course you are correct that the "naturally smart" people learned it faster. As in, new information was provided to them just once or twice and they instantly grasped it and were able to apply it.

As knowledge accumulates in people they may also actually "wake up with new information" nobody taught them. As in their brains may make associations and conclusions without someone teaching them. The proverbial "I had an idea while showering". There's your "talented" guy.

>there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things.

Someone who recognizes this very wisely might be the one most likely to engage both as much as possible.

As someone who neither took notes nor studied for basically anything I disagree. I cannot study effectively. I would cram some facts in 30 minutes prior to a test and that’s it. I don’t think I was alone. It had nothing to do with looking uncool.

Most stuff is simply taught in class and if you pay attention and remember it you will be fine. Teachers tend not to test stuff they did not teach.

I always thought studying was for kids who either did not pay attention or wasted their time taking notes without actually learning. I’ve softened that opinion since but many people absolutely do not need to study much.

Wait so after a lecture on the principles of, say, kinematics you would then be able to nail an exam that required you to compute against those principles? I think that's unusual.

For me in class even if I could follow the teacher perfectly, only through applying concepts in study (read: solving many problems) could I gain the deeper level of insight and comfort with the material that it took to ace exams.

I mean yeah. I sat in the front. I listened and took no notes.

If you’re being tested on details from a book you need to read the book. Think English tests that really just want to Make sure you actually read.

If you’re being tested on the gist of what was taught then you can probably just pay attention in class. Think… biology or history.

If you’re being tested on your ability to apply things you just need to be confident in your understanding of the mechanics. If you understand a math formula, and it’s reasoning, there’s not often a need to practice it. Some exceptions apply where the math is just weird hacks and patterns like finding function roots or calculus patterns. Physics is pretty hard for people because it really asks you to be able to apply things to real world thinking. I recall a question that requires you to consider the distance to the moon to get an answer. This distance was not provided. If you understood the formula and the problem, it was apparent that the distance would be so large it would not affect the answer. Hard to study for.

> I mean yeah. I sat in the front. I listened and took no notes

The reason I commented is because I also did all of those things! But only through adding in study could I sit exams and make 0 mistakes.

I was a bio major -- the gist was not enough. For example I needed to memorize every reactant and product of the Krebs and Calvin cycles. And the exam would have so much more to both memorize and process then just that. I just couldn't have stuck that knowledge through one-shotting class, and never imagined anyone could.

You truly have a blessed mind.

As someone else who was the same: Yes. The teacher would be demonstrating sample problems to the class at a much slower rate than I could apply it, so I was checking that I understood the material in real time.

Homework was sometimes useful (the repetition ensuring it wouldn't fade like cramming before a test does), but I didn't need as much as was assigned and never studied beyond that.

How much of it do you remember now? How much of it do you care to remember long term? I know you weren't alone, I was one of those kids too, at times or certain tests. For most people, it was about pride, being able to say you didn't study or social standing and "coolness". Later in life I learned I have ADHD and that went a long way to explain a lot of my bad habits. I think it depends on the level of curriculum too. 11th and 12th, the last two years of HS for me, six out of my eight classes were AP/college weighted, the only expections were english and physical education.

Teachers absolutely tested stuff they didn't teach and they barely assigned homework, there was a lot of self-learning. I think it's relatively uncommon, but in 12th I took AP Physics C, calculus based physics, and we did both semesters over the school year, both Mech and E&M. We matched college pacing, and on both AP test I got 5s. I am so grateful to that teacher for getting that experience before starting college, he had a PhD in theortical physics. My science education was filled with teachers with PhDs while I was in high school.

People absolutely have to study when they are being challenged at an appropriate level. If I was in a non-accelerated curriculum, I think I would have agreed with you, because it would have matched my experience. But I took my first AP class in 10th grade, the second year of high school. There's no way to be successful in a hard science AP class without studying in one way or another. I remember some of my friends used to do the homework from one class in another and then say they didn't study. I am not disagreeing with your experience, I am disagreeing with your generalization.

Imo I remember it very well. At least conceptually. History is the hardest.

I took 11 AP tests, 3 of them without taking the class over two years. My teachers were generally not PhDs but think these classes were better than my undergrad classes. I suspect you are right on the hard science assessment. Those do require simply memorizing many facts. I avoided those classes.