Einstein was a recognized genius, and his descendants were also intelligent, but why weren't they geniuses?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="78" > According to the relevant information I have read, there are about three factors that affect IQ:</h1>
1. Parental inheritance
According to a large number of psychological statistics, the IQ of parents and children shows a high positive correlation.
2. Mean reversion
Gifted parents can give birth to highly intelligent children, but most likely they will not be as talented as they are. The descendants of Einstein, Darwin, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Mozart, and Newton, for example, show no signs of becoming geniuses.
The general trend is that if the parents' IQ is too high, the next generation will randomly decrease a little; if the parents' IQ is too low, the next generation will randomly increase a little; in short, the IQ will return to the average.
3. Environmental impact
New Zealand psychologist, James M. James R. Flynn, in 60 years of research data, found that people showed a general upward trend in IQ scores. Each generation increased by about 15 points on average, which later psychologists called the "Flynn effect."
For example, in the second half of the 20th century, in the presence of two generations, the average IQ of the United States and Europe increased by at least 20 points according to the IQ databases of various countries.
The reason may be that the systematic education of the school has increased the IQ, for example, after completing the high school education, the IQ of the person can be improved by about a few points, that is, this is an attribute that can be slowly fine-tuned.
The high IQ of the previous generation gave the next generation a good starting point, but God still left a hand to add a coefficient of regression to the mean, probably because his old man did not want to see the situation of the strong and the strong.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="45" > is destiny inviolable, or is man sure to be able to overcome heaven? </h1>
In general, IQ is innate and difficult to change, so does a high IQ help a person learn a certain skill?
The answer is yes, and a high IQ is very helpful in learning skills, but the good news is that the extent is limited.
For example, in 2016, foreign scholars did a study on Go players: the relationship between Go level and IQ.
The subjects were divided into two groups: the first group, the amateur players (Elo rating < 2000) (ranking level of Go). The second group, Elo rating > 2000).
Among them, the statistical result of amateur players is that the correlation between Go level and IQ is 0.32 (if the correlation is 1, it means that there is a causal relationship between the two, that is, the level of IQ determines the level of Go, and has nothing to do with other factors. A lower than 0.4 indicates a weak correlation, i.e. IQ level and Go level have little to do with each other, and there are other factors that affect Go level).
The correlation between expert Go level and IQ is 0.14, which is much smaller than the amateur player's 0.32.
This data compares to the surface:
The level game between amateur players is relatively more dependent on talent, and if there is an advantage in IQ, then the level of Go also has a relatively obvious advantage.
The duel between the real masters is less dependent on IQ.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="76" > high starting point, does not represent high achievement, why? </h1>
Economics has a learning curve: a skill improves very quickly in the early stages of learning, but as the level increases, the marginal benefit of the practice to progress decreases.
For example, people with ordinary IQ, it takes 20 hours to practice a certain skill from beginner to intermediate level, while people with high IQ need 15 hours, but to practice to the top level of the industry, ordinary people need 10,000 hours, and high IQ needs 9,000 hours.
The key to this process is to accumulate 9,000 to 10,000 hours of practice time, and the 5-hour lead in the early stage becomes insignificant in the master duel.
This theory also explains the results of Go research: the reason why Go masters are high is because of a lot of deliberate practice, the more practice the higher the level, and the little advantage of iq at the beginning is drowned. On the contrary, amateur players have relatively little practice, and their talent accounts for a slightly higher proportion of the level of Go.
<H1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="64" > talent on campus</h1>
In school, the most tested subject of IQ is mathematics, and studies have shown that the correlation between mathematical scores and IQ is as high as 70%, so the students who can win in the national mathematics competition are probably really because of high IQ, for example, ordinary people want to surpass Peking University Weishen in mathematics The possibility is extremely small.
The correlation between subjects such as English and Chinese and IQ is less than 50%, the relationship between the two is very weak, and students with ordinary IQs are more likely to surpass students with high IQs in these two subjects.
The method is also very simple and crude, such as the "Mean" cloud:
A man has a hundred abilities, and a man has ten abilities. If you can do this, although you are foolish, you will be clear, and if you are soft, you will be strong.
If someone else does it once, I will practice it a hundred times; if someone else wants it ten times, I will do it a thousand times. If you can do this, although your innate wisdom is limited, you will be able to understand it over time; although you are born weak, you will be strong over time.
Let's look at the way of becoming a talented man of Kong Sage, Confucius said:
I am not born to know, good ancient, sensitive to the seeker also.
Confucius said that I was not born to know all the truths - I am not a genius, I like history, I like the wisdom and classics of the ancients, and then I work very diligently and diligently to learn.
Although Confucius said that he was not a genius, but in fact, his IQ was high or low, we do not know, but Zeng Guofan is a more typical example, once the thief hid on the beam of his house, watched his endorsement, and finally the thief listened, Zeng Guofan has not yet memorized, it can be seen that his talent should be very ordinary.
But his attitude to learning is, "Every day is new, every day is new, and every day is new." "I insist on renewing myself every day, and eventually I have achieved something."
If you think that the stories of these big people may be fictional and unreliable, I will tell you the story of my learning English.
When I was a child, my English was very general, the college entrance examination was only 96 points, and I studied English-related majors in college, but I didn't even pass the fourth level of college, and at that time I came to the conclusion that I probably didn't have the talent to learn foreign languages.
And 6 or 7 years ago, I made up my mind to start learning English again, and every day I came home from work to devote more than 5,000 hours to English, and now my vocabulary has reached 15,000 (the vocabulary of the eighth English is only 8,000). If I were to go back to the past and retake the college entrance examination now, I think there should be no problem with a score of 145.
In fact, the method of learning English is very simple, the ancients have long summarized and understood us: the purpose is oriented, the unity of knowledge and action, the continuous work of day by day, the new from the past - determined, the implementation of the learned content, daily practice, frequent review, enough.
Through my self-study of English, I completely understood, in fact, a copy of the Analects almost summed up the truth of the world, but we do not believe, always feel that others have done a difficult thing, because he is smart, because he has obtained some mysterious methods, and he just has no talent, no method, so he can't do it.
Again, as the old saying goes, we can't be great because we don't want to be ordinary. We always make things complicated because we don't believe in simplicity.