Starting Medical School at 12

[Twiigg]

No one is stating that any two brains are the same. That being said, the amount of difference in a genius' brain is undoubtedly greater than the amount of difference between any two average people. You can look at the studies of Einstein's brain for example.

I can buy into that, but I still have to ask: which came first? I mean, one could argue that Einstein was a genius simply because of how his brain is structured. One could also quite easily argue that his brain was the way it was due to how he used it throughout his life. The brain is a very fluid, adapting organ. It changes every day and its structure is a result of what we choose to do and think about every day. Connections can be made and they can be broken.

And these geniuses were still all a part of human society. As such, a type of noblesse oblige was expected of them. Just like somebody who went to Harvard will tell you they go to a school in Boston, a genius will tell you that anybody could succeed the same as he. It's a Western ideal and societal norm to underplay your nature strengths, and overplay your nurture abilities.

I completely agree that these geniuses were a part of human society. Being a part of a functioning human society is a prerequisite to most discoveries these days. Einstein had his manners, but he was completely willing to throw away all courtesies if it meant speaking truth.



Really, I'm just trying to say that genetics do not reflect the complete blueprint for the building of the brain. Basically, you argue that geniuses must be brilliant first and then their hard work will pay off. I agree with this to a point. I also don't believe a dolt with good work ethic is going to make the next big discovery; however, I choose not to downplay the significance that hard work in one's studies and interests can have on the brain and, as a result, the rest of humanity.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Retsage]

I'd say you're incorrect. The brain is very plastic, undoubtedly, but there is a limit. You do not see the kind of plasticity that would be required for a normal person to become a genius.

Think about it. Many savants are reading by the time they're two. Playing Mozart by five. They are doing things that the rest of us were simply incapable of doing. Was this because they were busy ambitiously learning right out of the womb while the rest of us were struggling with object permanence? Of course not. They had natural capabilities, due to a far more advanced brain. You can look at autistic savants and see similarities there. The structure and make-up of their brains are different not from practice, but from birth. They are born as human calculators, or with borderline perfect memory, at the expense of other skills.

 

[Twiigg]

I wonder how he, at the age of 12, can know that he wants to do an MD and a PhD. That's what I worry the most about: this kid could do many things, yet he has already decided on doing an MSTP?! I highly doubt he has been exposed to other fields or has incoorporated his future lifestyle into this decision. The kid may be able to handle it perfectly, but what advantages come from starting at the age of 12 - he simply cannot know that this is the best decision for him.

I do agree that a broader instruction at this point in his life could have been more beneficial. But if this is what he, not his parents, not his professors, etc., want him to do, then he should go for it. In the end, it is up to him. In reality, we cannot infer much seeing as we are unable to judge his own personal motives and desires. At 20, I don't think he will have room for many regrets. He will still have his whole life before him.

 

[closer23]

.

 

[Retsage]

^
Huh? I was under the impression that synaptic connections are created constantly. All of learning is the creation of new synapses.

 

[Greonis]

I wonder how he, at the age of 12, can know that he wants to do an MD and a PhD. That's what I worry the most about: this kid could do many things, yet he has already decided on doing an MSTP?! I highly doubt he has been exposed to other fields or has incoorporated his future lifestyle into this decision. The kid may be able to handle it perfectly, but what advantages come from starting at the age of 12 - he simply cannot know that this is the best decision for him.

This is why I believe that there is more to it than sheer genius. I would also be very interested in finding out why he chose to pursue a MD/PhD, and whether or not other factors (such as familial pressure or the allurement of fame) had a role to play.

If he found it on his own accord, then more power to him, and I hope he both thrives and lives a happy life as a physician. But, considering that almost everyone I know going into medicine (both pre-med and matriculated in medical school) either has doubts or (far less commonly) chose the field for the wrong reasons, it is very possible that he is in the same boat. This is especially so when you consider his age; he was only 12 years old when he made the choice, and even his sheer intellect may not have given him the wisdom (I define this as experience and the ability to apply one's intelligence) to have made the best choice for his own good.

Once again, I stress: we can speculate all day about this individual, but unless one of us knows him personally, it will amount to nothing. His accomplishments are extremely commendable, and I wish him nothing but the best of fortune in wherever his future takes him.

 

[Twiigg]

The connections are only destroyed, never created!

I'm referring to neurons.

 

[Retsage]

Guys, the entire "I hope he's making the right choice" argument is asinine. He's going to be graduating, debt-free, by 19-20. If he has made the wrong choice in his eyes, he can go do whatever the hell he wants, with a ton more opportunity than the rest of us.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

so hes gonna have an md/phd at 19??? wow, I bet he will get a ton of tail.

 

[Twiigg]

I'd say you're incorrect. The brain is very plastic, undoubtedly, but there is a limit. You do not see the kind of plasticity that would be required for a normal person to become a genius.

Think about it. Many savants are reading by the time they're two. Playing Mozart by five. They are doing things that the rest of us were simply incapable of doing. Was this because they were busy ambitiously learning right out of the womb while the rest of us were struggling with object permanence? Of course not. They had natural capabilities, due to a far more advanced brain. You can look at autistic savants and see similarities there. The structure and make-up of their brains are different not from practice, but from birth. They are born as human calculators, or with borderline perfect memory, at the expense of other skills.

I completely agree with you here in the case of savants. But I wonder if savant=genius. I mean, I'm not arguing that any 6-month-old has the opportunity to be the next Einstein. Certainly genetic factors play an enormous role in one's capabilities and potential.

As pointed out earlier, just because one has a high IQ does not mean he or she will go on to make a life-changing discovery. It requires hard work. I would just go one step further and say that hard work, being able to persevere through the challenges, defeats, and frustrations, made Einstein who he was just as much as his inherent neuronal capabilities did. I think we agree more than we disagree.

 

[closer23]

.

 

[nevercold]

Worth pointing out. I'm 26 going on 27 and I don't think that I have a "baby face" at all and my family and friends would agree. Yet, I VERY frequently get "How old are you?" "Are you old enough to be a doctor?" and "Gosh, doctors are getting so young these days." It surprises many average citizens that there are those of us who have gone straight through undergrad and med school in 8 years, the normal pace, and are now doctors.

This kid *definitely* should be advised to hold off on the clinical side as long as possible simply because he would seriously get annoyed at how often people would criticize him, discount him, and bother him about his age.

 

[circulus vitios]

How can he be a medical student? There's no way a 12 year old is mature enough to work with life or death situations.

Either way, I'd kill myself if I was forced into something like that. Sure, it's probably easy when you have a "200 IQ", but there must be so much pressure on him. I can see him burning out by the time he turns 20...

 

[LizzyM]

Imagine the hell of being that kid in Junior High and High school if he had not been given the opportunity to accelerate his academic work. What we might call a "normal adolescence" is really an ordinary adolescence. Whether such an ordinary existance would have been possible or even enjoyable for an extraordinary child is debatable.

I've seen applications from a few child prodigies. Most are not what I would call "strong" applicants in that they lack the life experiences and maturity that we generally look for in an applicant to medical school. Some schools have different criteria and as we all know, it only takes one offer of admission....

How can he be a medical student? There's no way a 12 year old is mature enough to work with life or death situations.

Either way, I'd kill myself if I was forced into something like that. Sure, it's probably easy when you have a "200 IQ", but there must be so much pressure on him. I can see him burning out by the time he turns 20...

Two years of basic science education plus two more years of graduate school classes plus three or more years in a lab to complete a dissertation... then on to "the wards" for clinical education. He has at least seven years before he'll see a living patient so I'm not too worried. Many MD/PhD types don't provide much clinical care (maybe one half-day of clinic per week) and most of their time is spent doing research and teaching.

 

[Twiigg]

This kid *definitely* should be advised to hold off on the clinical side as long as possible simply because he would seriously get annoyed at how often people would criticize him, discount him, and bother him about his age.

I think this would be one of the worst reasons to hold off.

 

[SDN2013]

LizzyM, I like your new avatar

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM, I like your new avatar

It's the same advatar, but a new hat!

 

[Terpskins99]

lol, this is very old news. Do your research people.

Its ironic to see a bunch of pre-meds debate the wisdom of someone else pursuing medical training, when that person had already started their training YEARS before many of you even considered going into medical school yourself.

 

[Excelsius]

Do you think the vast majority of the population is capable of such a heavy burden at a young age? I think not.

Again, comments like that or the concern about "normal" childhood, or "heavily accelerated" education (aka, the jerk) only show your perspectives as to what you think normal is. There are plenty of bright students who have tough childhoods. Just look at the other thread where the guy was so disturbed by his HS that he now wants to rub his acceptance onto some bully's face. I say that student would do better if his parent had properly home schooled him. That way, instead of being stressed by the rest of the kids who are not developed as much and are too immature, you sublimate that energy into learning something useful.

I also heard this guy's interview. Not only he did not sound like a social invalid, but he had a good sense of humor. I don't think that his childhood was any worse than someone who was pestered by bullies all his adolescent life because he was a bookworm.

 

[Excelsius]

Okay, a few points:

1) The separation between genius and non-genius is not that the genius wants it more? No. I know we're all told that everybody's special growing up, but some kids are just much more special. This is genetic and physiological. Our brains, relative to his brain, will be very different.

2) There are many brilliant people who have achieved nothing. But people who do achieve scientific greatness are also brilliant, IQ-wise. Saying Einstein only had an IQ of 160, not 200, is preposterous. Do you have any idea how brilliant one must be with an IQ of 160? The average medical student has an IQ of around 120-125, from what I understand. An IQ of 160 is more than four standard deviations higher than that.

3) The famous geniuses of the past, talking about perspiration, are just being humble. Do not mistake it for truth. They did what they did because they were incredibly brilliant firstly. Ambition and hard-work are required, of course, but a dolt with both will get nowhere. A genius with both, if chance should have it, will succeed immensely.

Quite the opposite - it is the genius that wants it more and that's why he gets it. As the saying goes, you don't posses genius, genius possesses you. It's a state of almost being possessed, like Mozart constantly composing all the way to his deathbed. Same with J.S. Bach, who composed while being blind and while the infection from unsuccessful cataract surgery was painfully killing him. Both of these men died leaving their greatest works unfinished (the Requiem and the Art of Fugue).

Who said that 160 is not good enough? That's not my point. At the same time, 160 is not a rare number. Some of us on SDN have 150 or higher. Ever heard of MENSA? My point was that high IQ isn't always congruent to great accomplishments because those take something more than IQ, like imagination. On the over end of spectrum are the savants, who seem to have an incredible knowledge base - like Kim Peek - yet often their IQs are below average. All of this provides insight as to what intelligence actually is.

 

[Excelsius]

You can't judge the quality of someone's life based on an internet article. The article doesn't even include his opinion on things... it discusses him. It doesn't talk about how he is doing emotionally or if he would rather be doing something else.

I do not think you understand IQ tests. IQ tests try to measure intelligence; they do not try and gauge the success or celebrity of someone. Since IQ tests are not trying to find the most successful people, we do not have to reevaluate the test simply because one person with a high IQ is not comparatively successful (eg making a "great discovery").

Also, many "great discoveries" do not correlate with intelligence (or are not caused by great intelligence). Many discoveries are random or they are the result of assessing accidents in the lab. Many successes (in life) require more than just intelligence.

I wonder how he, at the age of 12, can know that he wants to do an MD and a PhD. That's what I worry the most about: this kid could do many things, yet he has already decided on doing an MSTP?! I highly doubt he has been exposed to other fields or has incoorporated his future lifestyle into this decision. The kid may be able to handle it perfectly, but what advantages come from starting at the age of 12 - he simply cannot know that this is the best decision for him.

As I mentioned already, I heard this kid's interview. Also, if you read this and other articles about him, you'll discover that he does everything on his own, even where he chooses to attend medical school. If it were up to the parents, they'd probably select an Ivy or another top medical school that was closer to their home so they wouldn't have to relocate.

I did not suggest that high IQ = great discovery. I already addressed this in another post above.

You are incorrect. The greatest discoveries are not random. Einstein's thought experiment was a result of asking the same question "what is light?" for years and years. Neither did Newton accidentally discover gravity. The falling apple story is very skewed. There are some accidental discoveries and these are appropriately referred to as serendipitous, rather than random, but these do not make up a large part of discoveries. They include the discovery of artificial sugar, cosmic background by Wilson and Penzias, X-rays by Roentgen, etc. A few examples shouldn't mislead you to believe that one day you may be tuning your TV and discover the elusive gravitons.

I think it is insecurity that drives many premeds to criticize this person. After all, he is ahead of all of us. It is better to approach this issue from the point of view that all of us have the ability that he has. It's just that we chose to spend our time on other things than complete concentration on learning about our environment from concentrated databanks: books. You learned about your world by looking at it, this person learned about it by reading books. That's much more efficient and I have nothing but respect for his parents. There are probably more premeds on SDN today who were forced by their parents to attend med school than there are 12 year olds "forced" to learn. So let's not go there. Instead, it is better to learn from extraordinary case.

 

[airplanes]

Your statements, insinuations, judgments and conclusions are laughable. Anecdotal evidence of select child prodigies (you heard his interview on the radio and read some articles...you must be an expert!) and a breif profiling of great thinkers in human history somehow lead you to believe that the system and our own social norms are holding all of us back from greatness? Just because some people can and have done so does not mean that everyone can. Good luck with having kids of your own and unlocking THE TOTALITY of their neurological potential with home schooling. AGREE TO DISAGREE.

 

[MilkmanAl]

The greatest discoveries are not random.

Penicillin, red shift, the fact that universal expansion is accelerating, the photoelectric effect, and a whole host of other things would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Excelsius]

Your statements, insinuations, judgments and conclusions are laughable. Anecdotal evidence of select child prodigies (you heard his interview on the radio and read some articles...you must be an expert!) and the profiling of the thinkers in human history somehow lead you to believe the system and our own social norms are holding all of us back? good luck with having kids of your own and unlocking ALL of their neurological potential with home schooling. AGREE TO DISAGREE.

I also just happened to read numerous biographies of famous scientists and composers. The real problem here is dismissing something because it is way beyond the personal standards of the society. Do a search and read about other students who have graduated college around 15 and are now directors at various facilities. Most of them say that they don't feel that they missed any "childhood" experiences. It doesn't mean that there aren't those few students who don't turn out to be ok, just like some of us here could drop out of med school.

 

[MilkmanAl]

It's sort of hard to know you're missing something if you've never experienced it. Even if I'd been academically driven to that kid's level at 12, there's no way I'd go back and sacrifice my childhood to go to med school at 12. I wouldn't even think about it.

 

[airplanes]

I also just happened to read numerous biographies of famous scientists and composers. The real problem here is dismissing something because it is way beyond the personal standards of the society. Do a search and read about other students who have graduated college around 15 and are now directors at various facilities. Most of them say that they don't feel that they missed any "childhood" experiences. It doesn't mean that there aren't those few students who don't turn out to be ok, just like some of us here could drop out of med school.

I don't know about everyone else posting, but I personally have no problem with these child prodigies fulfilling their potential. I don't presume to know how happy he is with what he is doing. I just think its ridiculous to say that the rest of us are "jealous" or not using our minds to their "full capabilities."

 

[Law2Doc]

Dude, do you guys really take everything that literally? The saying is from Thomas Edison and goes something like "genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I never did anything worth doing by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by accident. They came by work."

Yeah, and it actually is quite an ironic statement, given that Edison stole more than a few of his inventions. No accident. Just old fashioned corporate espionage and theivery.

 

[Excelsius]

Penicillin, red shift, the fact that universal expansion is accelerating, the photoelectric effect, and a whole host of other things would seem to indicate otherwise.

??? I don't know about the rest right now, but the universal acceleration and photoelectric effect were not random discoveries. Hubble spent a lot of nights at Mt. Wilson trying to figure out what universe was. There were a lot of steps leading to the discovery about the open universe and later its acceleration, such as the discovery of galaxies. Same for photoelectric effect. There were several other scientists before Einstein who revealed the various pieces of the puzzle, such as the discovery that electrons even exist...

The implication that all or most major discoveries are random means that intelligence has played an insignificant role in the scientific development and it has all been a matter of luck. History doesn't agree. Some of the greatest discoveries were calculus, theory of motion, gravitation, and relativity. None were random. Neither was Darwin's insight.

 

[MilkmanAl]

I'm talking about the key concepts, not the research supporting them. Good try, though. There's an element of "wait, wtf?" to a whole lot of the most impressive discoveries of human history.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Wasnt Coca Cola random? That should be one of top 10 discoveries or inventions or whatever.

 

[whatever5656]

He's already a first author on a science journal publication.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Diaspora, a large family of Ty3-gypsy retrotransposons in Glycine max, is an envelope-less member of an endogenous plant retrovirus lineage.


he worked in a computer lab before starting medical school.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that he has "higher" ability than all of us.

 

[airplanes]

He's already a first author on a science journal publication.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Diaspora, a large family of Ty3-gypsy retrotransposons in Glycine max, is an envelope-less member of an endogenous plant retrovirus lineage.


he worked in a computer lab before starting medical school.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that he has "higher" ability than all of us.

who, exactly is denying his intellectual ability?

 

[mdmarty]

He's already a first author on a science journal publication.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Diaspora, a large family of Ty3-gypsy retrotransposons in Glycine max, is an envelope-less member of an endogenous plant retrovirus lineage.


he worked in a computer lab before starting medical school.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that he has "higher" ability than all of us.

That is a BMC Evolutionary Biology article. Impressive even for an undergrad, but not Science material.

The kid is impressive and I would really like to have someone like him as a classmate. But, contrary to what everyone here says and believes, geniuses aren't born--they're raised. The kid is not better than us because he is inherently superior. He is better because his parents introduced him to over achievement from the day he was born. I sort of wish my parents did the same...

 

[Excelsius]

... contrary to what everyone here says and believes, geniuses aren't born--they're raised. The kid is not better than us because he is inherently superior. He is better because his parents introduced him to over achievement from the day he was born. I sort of wish my parents did the same...

That's right. While I do agree that there may be some exceptions where a person just physically cannot reach certain achievement, all people, regardless of nationality, are very similar. We share 95% of our DNA with Chimps, but we share almost 100% of DNA as humans (I think 0.5% variation). One of my genetics teachers even mentioned the amount of DNA we share points to a singular mother that existed not so long ago, maybe as a result of a bottleneck. The genetic variation is really small. It's not like we have Vulcans in our populations. Einstein's brain weighed just average (I think it was even slightly below average). Intelligence has more to do with how your brain is connected - plasticity - rather than how big or different it is. We all have the same neurons and pass the signals at the same speed. It's just some of us spend more time connecting the neurons in such a way as to result in educational/scientific advantage, just like those professional computer game players have wired their brains to excel at that task. I would criticize these young "prodigies" rather than a guy who gets 40 or more on his MCAT and gets all A's in his med school courses.

 

[airplanes]

That's right. While I do agree that there may be some exceptions where a person just physically cannot reach certain achievement, all people, regardless of nationality, are very similar. We share 95% of our DNA with Chimps, but we share almost 100% of DNA as humans (I think 0.5% variation). One of my genetics teachers even mentioned the amount of DNA we share points to a singular mother that existed not so long ago, maybe as a result of a bottleneck. The genetic variation is really small. It's not like we have Vulcans in our populations. Einstein's brain weighed just average (I think it was even slightly below average). Intelligence has more to do with how your brain is connected - plasticity - rather than how big or different it is. We all have the same neurons and pass the signals at the same speed. It's just some of us spend more time connecting the neurons in such a way as to result in educational/scientific advantage, just like those professional computer game players have wired their brains to excel at that task. I would criticize these young "prodigies" rather than a guy who gets 40 or more on his MCAT and gets all A's in his med school courses.

Yeah all of our DNA points to a prehistoric lizard as well...the first land animal. so what. you honestly believe that .5% is not significant? what about people born with cystic fibrosis? That is one single allele. Look at the people you see every day...different heights, hair colors, interests, tics, thoughts, feelings and emotions. People are different, we aren't some blank canvas with the same abilities and same potential. Nature vs. nurture...Environment will never account for everything.

 

[deleted74029]

I just feel sorry for him cause he can't get drunk on his off weekends.

 

[Excelsius]

Yeah all of our DNA points to a prehistoric lizard as well...the first land animal. so what. you honestly believe that .5% is not significant? what about people born with cystic fibrosis? That is one single allele. Look at the people you see every day...different heights, hair colors, interests, tics, thoughts, feelings and emotions. People are different, we aren't some blank canvas with the same abilities and same potential. Nature vs. nurture...Environment will never account for everything.

That's not the point. Limit the discussion to the brain. Can we agree that all intelligence stems from the brain? I think so. Next, instead of going into various alleles, ask yourself - have there been any studies that have shown allelic differences among humans are significant enough to result in palpable physiological differences in different brains? E.g., having many more neurons than the next person, having dendrites that are more branched than average, having a brain that is significantly larger, a myelin sheath that's thicker contributing to faster impulse transduction, significantly more glial cells and astrocytes, etc? That's a physiological difference and since they have not been observed even in some geniuses, it is safe to assume that there are no significant physiological differences between the brain of the genius and your brain. As such, the 0.5% variation must contribute to the desire to learn, rather than a better brain. So nature causes the desire to utilize nurture and actually make your brain better, rather than being born with better brain. You can argue that the desire itself might be hormonal or neuronal, but that doesn't remove the argument of having an equally capable brain. I could argue that the desire is more a result of nurture than nature. No proof either way.

 

[Wylde]

That's right. While I do agree that there may be some exceptions where a person just physically cannot reach certain achievement, all people, regardless of nationality, are very similar. We share 95% of our DNA with Chimps, but we share almost 100% of DNA as humans (I think 0.5% variation). One of my genetics teachers even mentioned the amount of DNA we share points to a singular mother that existed not so long ago, maybe as a result of a bottleneck. The genetic variation is really small. It's not like we have Vulcans in our populations. Einstein's brain weighed just average (I think it was even slightly below average). Intelligence has more to do with how your brain is connected - plasticity - rather than how big or different it is. We all have the same neurons and pass the signals at the same speed. It's just some of us spend more time connecting the neurons in such a way as to result in educational/scientific advantage, just like those professional computer game players have wired their brains to excel at that task. I would criticize these young "prodigies" rather than a guy who gets 40 or more on his MCAT and gets all A's in his med school courses.

.5% (or whatever it is) sounds small, but it provides for tons of variation. It provides for some people to be mentally, physically, emotionally, (etc.) different. .5% means that this kid is genetically smarter just as it means Favre is genetically better at football than most people.

Assuming that the only difference between 2 brains is the connections between neurons, that does not mean one person is equal to the other. Some people may be more capable of forming new connections at a faster rate; some people are simply more intelligent.

PS on the "great discovery" topic: My point was that great discoveries do not directly correlate with intelligence. There are many brilliant people who have made great discoveries and many people of average intelligence who have made great discoveries. The main fact is that not every brilliant person makes a great discovery and not every non-brilliant person does not make a great discovery. Therefore, if this 200 IQ person does not make a great discovery it does not mean that he is not intelligent (and therefore that the IQ test is significantly flawed).

 

[airplanes]

That's not the point. Limit the discussion to the brain. Can we agree that all intelligence stems from the brain? I think so. Next, instead of going into various alleles, ask yourself - have there been any studies that have shows allelic differences between humans are significant enough to result in palpable physiological differences in the brain? E.g., having many more neurons than the next person, having dendrites that are more branched than average, having a brain that is significantly larger, a myelin sheath that's thicker contributed to faster impulse transduction, etc? That's a physiological difference and since they have not been observed even in some geniuses, it is safe to assume that there are no significant physiological differences between the brain of the genius and your brain. As such, the 0.5% variation must contribute to the desire to learn, rather than a better brain. So nature causes the desire to utilize nurture and actually make your brain better, rather than being born with better brain. You can argue that the desire itself might be hormonal or neuronal, but that doesn't remove the argument of having an equally capable brain.

You speak as if the brain isn't the least understood organ in the body. We can't even figure out how memory loss occurs as we age (in fact, we just discovered that the brain has supposedly limitless ability to retain information), yet here you are assuming that all human brains have the same ability and are physically identical.

 

[whatever5656]

That's not the point. Limit the discussion to the brain. Can we agree that all intelligence stems from the brain? I think so. Next, instead of going into various alleles, ask yourself - have there been any studies that have shown allelic differences among humans are significant enough to result in palpable physiological differences in different brains? E.g., having many more neurons than the next person, having dendrites that are more branched than average, having a brain that is significantly larger, a myelin sheath that's thicker contributing to faster impulse transduction, significantly more glial cells and astrocytes, etc? That's a physiological difference and since they have not been observed even in some geniuses, it is safe to assume that there are no significant physiological differences between the brain of the genius and your brain. As such, the 0.5% variation must contribute to the desire to learn, rather than a better brain. So nature causes the desire to utilize nurture and actually make your brain better, rather than being born with better brain. You can argue that the desire itself might be hormonal or neuronal, but that doesn't remove the argument of having an equally capable brain.

Do me a favor when you are in class tomorrow. Look at the professor, look to your right, look to your left, look in front of you, look in back of you and realize that not one person is the same. Sure we are genetically alike, but you need to learn how gene expression varies from one person to the next, how SNP variation can make a difference, and so much more.

O.5% can make a difference between being a mouse, a monkey or a human (I hope you get my point).

It is plain and simple, this young kid just has the abilities that none of us have. Just admit it!

I can't remember the specifics of Einstein's brain at this very second, but he had more parts of the brain that protect the degradation of neurons (sorry, my mind just isn't working very well at this second----watching football). He was born that way. This kid was born smart. You don't develop great abilities by working hard. You work hard to over come your limitations.

 

[Excelsius]

.5% (or whatever it is) sounds small, but it provides for tons of variation. It provides for some people to be mentally, physically, emotionally, (etc.) different. .5% means that this kid is genetically smarter just as it means Favre is genetically better at football than most people.

Assuming that the only difference between 2 brains is the connections between neurons, that does not mean one person is equal to the other. Some people may be more capable of forming new connections at a faster rate; some people are simply more intelligent.

PS on the "great discovery" topic: My point was that great discoveries do not directly correlate with intelligence. There are many brilliant people who have made great discoveries and many people of average intelligence who have made great discoveries. The main fact is that not every brilliant person makes a great discovery and not every non-brilliant person does not make a great discovery. Therefore, if this 200 IQ person does not make a great discovery it does not mean that he is not intelligent (and therefore that the IQ test is significantly flawed).

See my above post.

I did not say that IQ=200=not intelligent. I said that we will find out more about the brain, but that there is no need to wait. More explicitly, the conclusion should be that IQ=200 does not mean that person is smarter than IQ=160. I don't know if it is even possible to quantify intelligence.

 

[cyclin M]

You guys ever see that movie GATTACA?

It's not only what you're given, but what you do with it!

 

[Wylde]

That's not the point. Limit the discussion to the brain. Can we agree that all intelligence stems from the brain? I think so. Next, instead of going into various alleles, ask yourself - have there been any studies that have shown allelic differences among humans are significant enough to result in palpable physiological differences in different brains? E.g., having many more neurons than the next person, having dendrites that are more branched than average, having a brain that is significantly larger, a myelin sheath that's thicker contributing to faster impulse transduction, significantly more glial cells and astrocytes, etc? That's a physiological difference and since they have not been observed even in some geniuses, it is safe to assume that there are no significant physiological differences between the brain of the genius and your brain. As such, the 0.5% variation must contribute to the desire to learn, rather than a better brain. So nature causes the desire to utilize nurture and actually make your brain better, rather than being born with better brain. You can argue that the desire itself might be hormonal or neuronal, but that doesn't remove the argument of having an equally capable brain.

Yes. There are studies showing differences in the brains of geniuses and savants. Einstein's brain was found to have more glial cells per neuron, a thinner cortex, a greater density of neurons, and a different pattern of the sulci (source: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ein.html). I realize this includes data from only one genuises' brain (Einstein), but it is evidence that your train of logic is flawed.

Also, How many studies measure myelin?

How do you explain savants? Is a piano savant simply ridiculously motivated to play piano and nothing else?! Are these people able to be motivated to play piano more than any other person in the world?

What about athletes. I am sure there are a lack of studies showing a significant difference between an MVP athlete and someone who never gets drafted. Does that mean there is a huge difference in motivation between the two... even though they are both dedicating their lives to being drafted and then playing professionally? The fact is some people are simply better athletes (feel free to argue with me), even though there arent tons of studies showing any physical differences.

edit: More support that Einstein's brain was different

"The findings suggest that the physical attributes of many parts of the brain -- rather than a centralized "intelligence center" -- determine how smart a person is. A 1999 analysis of Albert Einstein's brain also seems to support this theory. Einstein's brain was slightly smaller than the average brain. However, parts of his parietal lobe were wider than most people's brains. The larger areas in Einstein's brain are related to mathematics and spatial reasoning. Einstein's parietal lobe was also nearly missing a fissure found in most people's brains. Analysts theorized that the absence of the fissure meant that different regions of his brain could communicate better."

Source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/genius1.htm




Here is another source discussing the differences in brains of gifted people and others. Unfortunately the sources (particularly source 2) are not active links, but the main article/abstract discusses different regions that are different in gifted people.

Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Iskander.html


I realize these studies dont say that the differences are caused by varying genetics, but there is simply a lack of studies and a lack of knowledge of the brain. The brain is arguably the least understood organ and there are huge parts of the brain that we know very little about. Even the parts of the brain that are heavily studies (hippocampus, MPFC, amygdala, etc.) are barely understood.

 

[Twiigg]

That is a BMC Evolutionary Biology article. Impressive even for an undergrad, but not Science material.

The kid is impressive and I would really like to have someone like him as a classmate. But, contrary to what everyone here says and believes, geniuses aren't born--they're raised. The kid is not better than us because he is inherently superior. He is better because his parents introduced him to over achievement from the day he was born. I sort of wish my parents did the same...

This is a very large factor.

 

[Retsage]

That is a BMC Evolutionary Biology article. Impressive even for an undergrad, but not Science material.

The kid is impressive and I would really like to have someone like him as a classmate. But, contrary to what everyone here says and believes, geniuses aren't born--they're raised. The kid is not better than us because he is inherently superior. He is better because his parents introduced him to over achievement from the day he was born. I sort of wish my parents did the same...

You and Excelsius are so unbelievably incorrect, it's not even funny. Well, it is funny. Very funny. Hence the laughter emotes.

How exactly was this kid reading before we could speak? Because his parents threw books at him? How about Chris Langan, who may in fact be the smartest man alive? Does this sound like the type of childhood that creates achievement and insane IQs:

[youtube]http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0&feature=related[/youtube]

Ridiculous. Genetics is the answer. A few random mutations, and his brain grows in a different way than our own. You two have been fed so much PC-bull**** about everyone being able to achieve everything, that you've let reality fly right out the window. From birth, some are more privileged than others. Odds are, you're more privileged than most. This kid was born more privileged than almost everyone else alive. It had nothing to do with his upbringing, nor yours. I read non-fiction daily, I read pubmed articles, I read fiction. I'm always learning. I don't hold a ****ing candle to this kid, and never will, no matter how much I want it. Neither will you, nor your kids.

 

[Greonis]

It is plain and simple, this young kid just has the abilities that none of us have. Just admit it!

While I won't deny that his achievements at his age are leaps and bounds beyond what most of us had, to presuppose that having abilities automatically means that they will be used is a bit excessive. Take someone born with an exceptionally efficient circulatory system that allows them to run faster and longer than the average human (that is, it is a product of their genetics). That definitely gives them a degree of physical superiority when running (say this individual could run in the Olympics at a very young age with only a fraction of the standard training). But what good is it if no one (including the person himself/herself) does not recognize the potential? Unless it is discovered and harnessed, it will never be used, and the person will not be considered "special," despite having the innate ability to be that way.

I would guess that the same could be said of some potential child prodigies. Any number of children could be out there who have the intellectual capabilities to become savants in any number of areas - science, music and mathematics, to name a few. But, for a number of possible reasons (examples include socioeconomic status, the child's environment, or poor access to education), the child never has the opportunity to reveal these talents, and grows up "normally." Their talents may emerge as they enter adulthood, but by then, the "WOW!" factor has worn off, since they are adults for whom such achievements are more customary.

In no way am I trying to say that everyone is capable of the same amazing feats. To tell the truth, I would guess that only a fraction of a percent of the world's population can come close to matching Sho's background; I have seen his interview and accomplishments, and they are remarkable even for a person of a more "standard" age. Rather, I am simply trying to point out that not everything can be judged by salience alone. I hope that no one here judges intellect by accomplishment alone - the human mind is far too dynamic for such simple assessments.

 

[whatever5656]

While I won't deny that his achievements at his age are leaps and bounds beyond what most of us had, to presuppose that having abilities automatically means that they will be used is a bit excessive. Take someone born with an exceptionally efficient circulatory system that allows them to run faster and longer than the average human (that is, it is a product of their genetics). That definitely gives them a degree of physical superiority when running (say this individual could run in the Olympics at a very young age with only a fraction of the standard training). But what good is it if no one (including the person himself/herself) does not recognize the potential? Unless it is discovered and harnessed, it will never be used, and the person will not be considered "special," despite having the innate ability to be that way.

I would guess that the same could be said of some potential child prodigies. Any number of children could be out there who have the intellectual capabilities to become savants in any number of areas - science, music and mathematics, to name a few. But, for a number of possible reasons (examples include socioeconomic status, the child's environment, or poor access to education), the child never has the opportunity to reveal these talents, and grows up "normally." Their talents may emerge as they enter adulthood, but by then, the "WOW!" factor has worn off, since they are adults for whom such achievements are more customary.

In no way am I trying to say that everyone is capable of the same amazing feats. To tell the truth, I would guess that only a fraction of a percent of the world's population can come close to matching Sho's background; I have seen his interview and accomplishments, and they are remarkable even for a person of a more "standard" age. Rather, I am simply trying to point out that not everything can be judged by salience alone. I hope that no one here judges intellect by accomplishment alone - the human mind is far too dynamic for such simple assessments.

I don't think people are. So that is a good thing.

When I was three, I was learning the alphabet. When he was three, he was already great and some music thing. I will admit that he just has some gifts that I don't. That still won't stop me from doing great things.

Maybe when he is done with his schooling I'll try to collaborate with him on some research projects and business ideas.

 

[Excelsius]

Yes. There are studies showing differences in the brains of geniuses and savants. Einstein's brain was found to have more glial cells per neuron, a thinner cortex, a greater density of neurons, and a different pattern of the sulci (source: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ein.html). I realize this includes data from only one genuises' brain (Einstein), but it is evidence that your train of logic is flawed.

Also, How many studies measure myelin?

How do you explain savants? Is a piano savant simply ridiculously motivated to play piano and nothing else?! Are these people able to be motivated to play piano more than any other person in the world?

What about athletes. I am sure there are a lack of studies showing a significant difference between an MVP athlete and someone who never gets drafted. Does that mean there is a huge difference in motivation between the two... even though they are both dedicating their lives to being drafted and then playing professionally? The fact is some people are simply better athletes (feel free to argue with me), even though there arent tons of studies showing any physical differences.

edit: More support that Einstein's brain was different

"The findings suggest that the physical attributes of many parts of the brain -- rather than a centralized "intelligence center" -- determine how smart a person is. A 1999 analysis of Albert Einstein's brain also seems to support this theory. Einstein's brain was slightly smaller than the average brain. However, parts of his parietal lobe were wider than most people's brains. The larger areas in Einstein's brain are related to mathematics and spatial reasoning. Einstein's parietal lobe was also nearly missing a fissure found in most people's brains. Analysts theorized that the absence of the fissure meant that different regions of his brain could communicate better."

Source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/genius1.htm




Here is another source discussing the differences in brains of gifted people and others. Unfortunately the sources (particularly source 2) are not active links, but the main article/abstract discusses different regions that are different in gifted people.

Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Iskander.html


I realize these studies dont say that the differences are caused by varying genetics, but there is simply a lack of studies and a lack of knowledge of the brain. The brain is arguably the least understood organ and there are huge parts of the brain that we know very little about. Even the parts of the brain that are heavily studies (hippocampus, MPFC, amygdala, etc.) are barely understood.

Neuroscience for kids and how stuff works? Maybe better sources? Anyway, perhaps I'll review your evidence later. Maybe someone will do it before I do. Meanwhile, keep this in mind: behavioral changes trigger physiological changes. Therefore, some of the physiological changes can be attributed to nurture rather than nature. More brain activity = more glial cells to support the activity rather than more glial cells as an anticipation of more brain activity in the future - that's teleological. In order to interpret results more correctly you need to do one of these:

1) Examine a child's brain before he/she starts acquiring data that will change the constitution of the brain. This will rule out nurture.
2) Compare Einstein's brain to another active scientist, like John Wheeler or Kip Thorne, and prove that Einstein indeed had significantly different physiology of the brain.
3) Or make a discovery as to what part of the brain does not get affected by nurture (maybe myelin sheath thickness or the speed of transduction?) and then compare only those properties in genius vs non-genius comparisons.

You and Excelsius are so unbelievably incorrect, it's not even funny. Well, it is funny. Very funny. Hence the laughter emotes.
...
Ridiculous. Genetics is the answer. A few random mutations, and his brain grows in a different way than our own. You two have been fed so much PC-bull**** about everyone being able to achieve everything, that you've let reality fly right out the window. From birth, some are more privileged than others. Odds are, you're more privileged than most. This kid was born more privileged than almost everyone else alive. It had nothing to do with his upbringing, nor yours. I read non-fiction daily, I read pubmed articles, I read fiction. I'm always learning. I don't hold a ****ing candle to this kid, and never will, no matter how much I want it. Neither will you, nor your kids.

Judging from?


Guys, allow me a simple observation. This guy's sister is also going to attend college when she's 12 or so. Does that ring any bells? Maybe something like nurture? Making the same genetic superiority claim would be misplaced since the probability that the second child has that genetic superiority as well would be almost null. So it's all the hard work of the mother. And why isn't the sister attending med school at 12? Because the mother concentrated all her attention on the son which made her not as available to her daughter. Had her daughter been the first born, she could very well be the one to start med school at 12. And here is a parallel in history: Mozart's sister, Nanerl, was also a musical prodigy; HOWEVER, you have never heard about her because her parents discouraged her from continuing her musical studies because she was a woman. If you are punctilious, you will be able to see the moral of the story here. Nothing more needs to be said really.

The age old question nature vs nurture is disputed by some of the best scientists of the world. You can't expect a bunch of premeds here to make a solid verdict either way.

 

[whatever5656]

Neuroscience for kids and how stuff works? Maybe better sources? Anyway, perhaps I'll review your evidence later. Maybe someone will do it before I do. Meanwhile, keep this in mind: behavioral changes trigger physiological changes. Therefore, some of the physiological changes can be attributed to nurture rather than nature. More brain activity = more glial cells to support the activity rather than more glial cells as an anticipation of more brain activity in the future - that's teleological. In order to interpret results more correctly you need to do one of these:

1) Examine a child's brain before he/she starts acquiring data that will change the constitution of the brain. This will rule out nurture.
2) Compare Einstein's brain to another active scientist, like John Wheeler or Kip Thorne, and prove that Einstein indeed had significantly different physiology of the brain.
3) Or make a discovery as to what part of the brain does not get affected by nurture (maybe myelin sheath thickness or the speed of transduction?) and then compare only those properties in genius vs non-genius comparisons.



Judging from?


Guys, allow me a simple observation. This guy's sister is also going to attend college when she's 12 or so. Does that ring any bells? Maybe something like nurture? Making the same genetic superiority claim would be misplaced since the probability that the second child has that genetic superiority as well would be almost null. So it's all the hard work of the mother. And why isn't the sister attending med school at 12? Because the mother concentrated all her attention on the son and made her not as available to her daughter. Had her daughter been the first born, she could very well be the one to start med school at 12. And here is a parallel in history: Mozart's sister, Nanerl, was also a musical prodigy; HOWEVER, you have never heard about her because her parents discouraged her from continuing her musical studies because she was a woman. If you are punctilious, you will be able to see the moral of the story here. Nothing more needs to be said really.

The age old question nature vs nurture is disputed by some of the best scientists of the world. You can't expect a bunch of premeds here to make a solid verdict either way.

That is nature, sir. The reason why these kids are able to do so much so young is because they are predisposed to allow them to function at such a high level at such a young age. The parents push academics at a young age.

Here is an experience for you. Take 10 random kids at birth, teach them all the same material, the same length of the time, and the like. See what results you get. Some kids will do a lot better than others. That is not nurture, that is nature. Nurtering is helping the kid over come the limitations. Being able to exceed at such a high level psychology at such a young age is nature.

The reason why the young sister is able to do about the same as the older brother is because she has a similar genetic makeup.

They have to donate their brain to research to do that. You know we can't do that until the person is dead...very shortly after death.

Nurtering will affect different parts of the brain. Nurtering is not going to lead to the development of more glia cells and the like. What one wants to do is try to form more synapses. That can be influenced by nurtering.

 

[airplanes]

This guy's sister is also going to attend college when she's 12 or so. Does that ring any bells?

YEAH, my first thought was that it runs in the family.