0.1% of people create the math and technology for the rest 99.9% and its all about IQ...

>What makes a good researcher is dedication, creativity, and will.
Does having a higher IQ make you less likely to have those things?
Because otherwise it's like saying that good legs don't make you a good runner because you need so much more than that (while ignoring the fact that people with good legs can also have those other good attributes that make people with bad legs also good runners).

If the distribution of dedicated and creative people is the same among high-IQ and low-IQ population, wouldn't that make the high-IQ chunk of the population objectively better?

Attached: (JPEG Image, 285 × 177 pixels).jpg (285x177, 8K)

Not just IQ, it's also the drive, determination, and interest to be the best in this field.

hur dur forgets where mathmatics and astronomy was created

robots are a meme

>tfw in the 2.1% but still a useless fuckup

Attached: 1503309946348.png (633x758, 429K)

Robots.

f the distribution of dedicated and creative people is the same among high-IQ and low-IQ population, wouldn't that make the high-IQ chunk of the population objectively better?
Theoretically sure, but being optimally suited towards something doesn’t mean that happens in practice. If I am physically suited to being an excellent runner but I don’t run (or train hard enough), what does it matter if I could be the greatest runner? Saying “I could be a better runner than you” is worthless to someone who is a better a runner than you.

Of course, but what's the point of even saying it?
If you told me "tall people are advantaged at basketball" and I told you "yeah, but what if they don't play basketball? in that case their advantage won't help them be good at basketball", you'd think I was trying to strawman you.

Nobody is saying that IQ alone is the predictor of success in academia, but it being such a strong factor, you can't deny that having a high IQ does help a lot.
It's not the only thing that can help you being good, for sure, but it becomes exponentially more significant the more complex your field gets, to the point where in the most "difficult" parts of certain fields, without a very high IQ you'll never amount to anything no matter the dedication, creativity, etc.
How many Nobel prize recipients have a low IQ and made it solely off of dedication and creativity?
How many groundbreaking advancements to math, physics, engineering, etc. have been made by such low-IQ driven and creative people?
Not many.
Sure, you can be a normal researcher and have some success, but the higher in complexity you go, the less drive can compensate for not having the necessary cognitive abilities.

>If I am physically suited to being an excellent runner but I don’t run (or train hard enough), what does it matter if I could be the greatest runner? Saying “I could be a better runner than you” is worthless to someone who is a better a runner than you.
Yes, a loser bragging about having a powerful brain despite not having used it for anything worthwile is pointless, but we're not talking about that here, and it certainly doesn't mean that IQ isn't important in high-complexity endeavors.

>Whats the point?
If you aren't in the 0.1% then just kick back and enjoy the life others made for you. Easy.

okay so what
it doesnt matter who did it
it only matters that it happened

even if my iq is mediocre, i can join a small company and be a small dev who does what others won't do because they're busy shooting rockets and blowing up shit in nasa. i can do cool shit within my competence, and result of my work will become something of worth. it's good enough.

>Your proficiency isnt based on your own abilities or free will but a diceroll made before you were born
for example: my proficiency is based on my undying love for technology and fact that i've started programming at the end of elementary school. i am sum of external factors, i wouldn't be here if i wouldn't have watched matrix or had commodore as a kid, but my interest in computer things is as much of my own choice as it could possibly be. i imagine it's similar for any other person and any other kind of proficiency.

tl;dr half of your post makes no difference, and the other half is wrong

> a diceroll made before you were born
Only if you get the shit card - some severe health or mental deficiencies.

The problem for the rest (which is most) is that they never put in the effort to git gud at anything difficult.

IQ is a huge meme. It does tell something, but not really what people usually think it does and not nearly enough to make judgement about almost anything.

Only the basics of those disciplines have been created by them.
Just because you can create something it doesn't mean you'll always be able to excel at it even when others evolve it to a MUCH more complex state.

If the Homo Habilis invented tool-making, does that mean that they can excel at making modern tools too?

Stop using the term IQ, IQ is quite literally a meaningless term. I’m going to assume you mean some sort of an analytical ability or some vague concept of intelligence. You seem to be assuming that intelligence can not change or be improved - there is no basis for this. If I can improve my muscles, why not my brain? Now I’ll grant you if your brain is deficient in some way you can’t overcome that, but the number of people who are limited by that is smaller rather than writing off everyone who isn’t just extremely intelligent by nature. My response to you is do you think those researchers started smart, or worked to gain the analytical and technical skills needed to succeed in their area?

>you don't need just the IQ, you also need drive/creativity/willpower/etc
Yes, but technically those things are also the result of luck.
If you're driven/creative/etc it's because you grew up in a way that ultimately led you to have that trait, and in a different environment you would've grown up differently.

Besides, those traits are significantly dependent on genetics too, so you owe your success partly on your genes (for whatever difference is made by IQ, temperament, aptitude for certain tasks, etc.) and the rest to whatever happened to happen to you in your life that made you that way.

I don't know you but I don't remember choosing before my birth what kind of person I wanted to become.

If you put two newborn twins in wildly different families (a tenured professor's home and a trailer park with 7 other adopted kids), the guy who was intellectually stimulated all his life and developed curiosity and the work ethic to become a researcher would have a much different life than the guy who grew up in a trailer park being a lazy piece of shit all his life, and despite their genes having no influence on their difference, they still had no choice on who they became.

>inb4 the Minnesota adoption studies
They aren't valid at all in this context because the families the kids were put in were pretty similar and never as drastically different as my example, therefore only show that genes have an important role (which I'm not denying) but don't prove that they have the ONLY role.

They were created by Caucasoids and Semites.
Do you think it was negroes? lol

This, but unironically.

This is total bullshit. Yes there are certain things you don’t have control over. You can’t change these things, but you can control how you respond to them and move forward. You CAN change the person you are. You can change the way world sees you. If there is one thing to be learned from history it is that the will of one man can unilaterally change the fate of the world. You can’t change who you were born as but you can change who you become. If you think you can’t change your fate, how can you ever hope to solve a complex math problem? “Oh well I’m just not smart enough to solve it” that’s such fucking bullshit. Take your life into your own hands and take responsibility for it. If you fail, you fail, but at least fail on your own terms. Complaining about the way things are is fucking pointless.

This, but ironically.

>This is basically how India regressed from ancient civilization to dumb smelly street shitters.
Because the brits fucked them over with underhanded and malicious trade policies like they did to China? They were like the 3rd and 2nd richest civilizations in the world at the time and very stable and relatively peaceful, then brits fucked it all up because they wanted to peddle drugs and weapons. Pajeets and chinks still statistically have the advantage in producing geniuses because of their populations and the fact that their distribution is close to whites but with several times the population. It's just a matter of time until they take over, especially with the west just handing a free 1st world economy to China

what shounen is this from

>Stop using the term IQ, IQ is quite literally a meaningless term. I’m going to assume you mean some sort of an analytical ability or some vague concept of intelligence.
It's the most colloquially valid way of talking about general intelligence.
Yes, it doesn't measure all capabilites of the human brain (someone with a low-IQ can still excel at things that aren't measured by it), but it does measure most of the most important ones (certainly those necessary for academic success).
The way I'm using "high-IQ" is in the most common "generally intelligent person as measured by IQ tests".
If you disagree that those tests are valid, you can argue it with the psychologists who use it. I'm simply using it as a general way of assessing someone's overall cognitive ability because it's the most widely used and therefore is the only one that can be referenced in a discussion like this.

>You seem to be assuming that intelligence can not change or be improved
You're wrong.
I know very well that IQ can be improved or reduced to a certain extent.

>If I can improve my muscles, why not my brain?
You can, but not in the same way, simply because "improving" them works in VERY different ways, and the analogy isn't valid at all, even if I agree with your point.

1/3

>Now I’ll grant you if your brain is deficient in some way you can’t overcome that, but the number of people who are limited by that is smaller rather than writing off everyone who isn’t just extremely intelligent by nature.
Being deficient isn't just the result of an illness or birth defect.
Just like people are born with a different quality of organs (some have strong hearts and some have weak ones, some have great kidneys and some need a replacement in their 40s despite leading a much healthier life than others who don't need them replaced ever), some people are born with a better brain than others (which can come from a myriad of different factors, such as neuroplasticity, myelin creation, gyrification, etc.) that can peform certain tasks better than other people can (and some lucky ones have brains that can perform all tasks better than others).

If you take two healthy children with everythign exactly the same, except one born with a very good brain, and one with a mediocre one, and put them through the same exact life full of mental stimuli, challenges, learning experiences, etc. both will have improved their IQ compared to what they'd have ended up without those improvements, but those improvements won't compensate for the difference that they were born with.

2/3

To use your muscle analogy, I can clone myself and put my kid through the exact same training that Usain Bolt did minute by minute, and he'd certainly run very fast, but he won't even be close to what bolt can achieve, simply because despite my training, I just wasn't born with the hardware that Bolt was born with (which he took to the highest level with training, of course).
In the same way, the fields with the highest complexity require someone who is BOTH equipped with a naturally excellent brain, and all those boosts that come from a life full of mental stimuli that trained it to its max.

There is no way that someone with a sub-80 IQ could be cloned and raised to be a genius. At most you could bring him up to average levels, but if you're born with a "weak" brain there's no training that can get you to the same level as someone who's naturally gifted.

>My response to you is do you think those researchers started smart, or worked to gain the analytical and technical skills needed to succeed in their area?
The average ones could have started with anything from average to brilliant brains and got there by working.
The top-level ones have undoubtedly started with excellent brains.
There's no way they could've reached those levels with an average brain because average brains get trained to their peak all the time in average but driven people (most of academia is this way), and although they can find success, none of them ever reaches the top.

3/3

You don't understand.
My point is that how are you going to decide to change who you are, entirely depends on what person you are in the first place and what happened in your life that led you to choose to change yourself.

The two newborns from my example can definitely choose to change their life (the academic one can choose to leave the academic world and become a wingsuit jumper or the trailer trash guy can decide to get his shit together) but IF and HOW they take that decision depends on what the ideas that found their way into their heads shaped their capacity to take that decision.
The academics guy could've never even considered anything but the life of study because that's what he considers "his thing" and he enjoys it because his parents never showed him anything else.
The trailer trash guy could've grown up thinking of people who study as stupid nerds who can't have fun, and think that his way of life is good, because in his life there has been nothing to convince him otherwise.
There are too many factors at play, and all of them are external.

You don't get to choose whether you're the guy with enough willpower to change himself or not.

Humans are robots.

This. There are people that are very smart but they work in different fields.

>Another iq thread

Attached: maxresdefault-2.jpg (1280x720, 95K)

All over the fucking globe

Nietzsche & Stoicism. Also the one where you’re a comic relief character
You misunderstand my argument. I’m not saying that a below-average intelligence person can become a genius mathematician but I am saying that it’s not only intelligence there that make one talented and successful for research. For one it’s not necessary to be extremely intelligent to do good research - take a look at the two cultures of mathematics or in physics where you have people that just do experiments vs theoreticians. Right there are people that see problems and solve them, and some who think about the greater context of those problems. To put it another way, if research is a puzzle, there are people who find the pieces and those who fit those pieces together. Running experiments all day long to try to find a better material for batteries may not require a high level of intelligence, It does require a high level of discipline and tenacity. And it is good research, it generates excellent data for others and is important research to undertake. My point is this, that intelligence alone is not enough to necessarily succeed as a researcher, nor is it even required in all circumstances.

Now so as not to change context, my feelings about intelligence are that you may not be smart enough to solve Navier-Stokes, but you can contribute to solving it. Research is collaborative, no one solves anything by themself - all work is built on previous work. I think that if you are not naturally intelligent, you can overcome this if you excel in other factors to become a successful researcher.

No I understand, but I just think that this argument contributes anything meaningful. If you want to go that route, then everything is arbitrary and pre-determined. The person who is a researcher is only there because of things outside his control. Then we’re all automatons without free will so it doesn’t matter if you’re smart or not because you may become a researcher if that’s just the way things have lead to.

Chinks.

That's exactly what I mean.
I'm not for absolving people of their actions and responsibilities, but yeah, we're all nothing more than the consequence of countless ripples influencing each other in apparent randomness.

>If you want to go that route, then everything is arbitrary and pre-determined. The person who is a researcher is only there because of things outside his control. Then we’re all automatons without free will so it doesn’t matter if you’re smart or not because you may become a researcher if that’s just the way things have lead to.
Not sure if I understand what you mean exactly, but generally everything that is within our control is actually the result of stuff that's outside of it.
That's how life is.
This doesn't mean that we should just let things happen without doing anything.
Of course we should do everything in our ability to improve our life.
All I'm saying is that THE REASON why we do such thing isn't because of external factors. Not that the things we do are external to us.

It's not something that should shape your behaviors or decisions. It's just an observation of the merit of someone who was born with a genius IQ vs someone who had a low IQ but was high in other traits.
They're both equally deserving/undeserving of merit.

>0.1% of people grow and harvest food for the rest of the world and its all about getting dirty
>0.1% of people extract the fuels and materials for our power needs and it's all about back breaking labor
OP do you really imagine that you're a necessary component for most lives? 100 billion people lived and died before your weak existence.

It's not all about IQ
t. High IQ who has done nothing

>this ice cold blue pilled take

Discipline and determination are what makes shit happen. SpaceX is a perfect example of this: There was no "oooh we're so sure it's right!" part of it. They just took the idea and fucking ran with it, with no idea if it would work or if they were right. They weren't concerned about that, they just wanted to try.

Also 1% IQ

>it’s not only intelligence there that make one talented and successful for research.
>it’s not necessary to be extremely intelligent to do good research
I agree and I've specifically stated this.
I'm only addressing the idea that IQ doesn't matter, because it does and it makes a big difference. A low IQ is a handicap and the lower you go the harder you have to work to compensate for it.
Sure you can overcome this handicap by working hard but it's still a handicap, and when it comes to fields that require the highest level of cognitive abilities, a normal IQ becomes a handicap.
Therefore, OP is right in saying that the top 0.1% of people are necessary for what the 99.9 percent enjoys.
To make a Jow Forums analogy, any normal person with a normal IQ can learn to program in C++, but only a genius can CREATE C++ for the normal-IQ person to use.
Without such geniuses to provide the tools and foundations for the average people, they'd have a much harder time advancing their fields no matter the drive/creativity/whatever.

>take a look at the two cultures of mathematics or in physics where you have people that just do experiments vs theoreticians. Right there are people that see problems and solve them, and some who think about the greater context of those problems. To put it another way, if research is a puzzle, there are people who find the pieces and those who fit those pieces together. Running experiments all day long to try to find a better material for batteries may not require a high level of intelligence, It does require a high level of discipline and tenacity. And it is good research, it generates excellent data for others and is important research to undertake.
Did you even read my post?
I agree with this.
All I'm saying is that without a naturally excellent brain, the most you can achieve is being an average researcher, which is still good, but not the 0.1% that the OP is talking about.

1/3

>My point is this, that intelligence alone is not enough to necessarily succeed as a researcher
Just like height isn't enough to necessarily succeed as a basketball player (not every tall guy is good at it obviously) nor is it even required in all circumstances (some players succeed on technique alone even with a short stature, although they don't reach elite status like the Lebrons or the Jordans who have all stats high).
Should we rule height as meaningless in basketball?

>you may not be smart enough to solve Navier-Stokes, but you can contribute to solving it.
Sure, but the smarter you are, the higher your chances are at doing such thing.
Would you rather have a team entirely composed of 90-IQ people or a team thet's exactly the same in everything (literally copy-pasted the people), except their brain is magically upgraded to 100-IQ?
What about 120? or 130? or 160?
You see what I mean?
With IQ the more is better and as I said above, a low one is a handicap. Yes you can overcome it but it will still be a handicap that can make it more or less impossible to do certain work, and most importantly, even in the work you can do you'll be stunted and will get much worse results.

>Research is collaborative, no one solves anything by themself - all work is built on previous work.
What I said above still applies, but I want to add that even just by increasing the IQ of the lead researcher and leaving the rest of the team untouched, you'll see great improvements.

2/3

>I think that if you are not naturally intelligent, you can overcome this if you excel in other factors to become a successful researcher.
Just like if you're short you be a successful basketball player, but you'll have a much harder time, you'll have to work much harder, and you'll never reach the very top.
Also, this basketball analogy doesn't even address the fact that successful researchers aren't low-IQ at all. Most of them aren't genius-level, but they're definitely not stupid.
No sub-80 IQ can graduate in STEM (well, without cheating or getting it handed to him at least), and a 90 will still have a very hard time, let alone be successful at it.

IQ isn't the only factor, but it's by far the biggest one.

3/3

Only if you have low iq

>you can control how you respond
>CAN change the person you are
>can change who you become
>Take your life into your own hands

Are you really this naive or trolling?

>Im not in control
Cope and excuses

Robots.

>Low IQ humans are robots

Replace "low" with "high" and it MIGHT make some sense.

Attached: 1515005235998.gif (200x200, 2M)

Brainlet post.

If you're ~115 or higher it literally doesn't matter unless you're a MENSA shill
plenty of geniuses can be found strewn on both the far and near end past the first stddev

Actually its 130. Below that youre unfit for STEM

Robots

Get to C-level and earn millions, who gives a shit about the 200+ iq researchers, people care about the (((self-made man))) CEO.
People want to be elon musk even if he is the biggest fraud of the century, noone wants to be the new Euler, Gauss or Pointcarré.

>noone wants to be the new Euler, Gauss or Pointcarré.
A ton of people do actually.

EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD SHUT THE FUCK UP AND FLOAT ON

Math checks out. Born in to a small bubble defines your life.

Environment defines options (also defines brain's network for thinking. parents are part of environment). Person can only choose from a list of options they got. Genetics give base stats that the environment may prefer (society). Which results in more options or effiency but this is marginal if 99.9% human dna is the same. Environment / other people have preferences which affect more than dna/iq.

There is only one rule and that is survival of the most suited to their environment. With computing power humans can be aware of this and not play by their emotions or biases. Just list all your options and simulate which gives the wanted result. Most cant remember all options and most are limited by their environment. For effiency all should be aware of everything but currently we limit people because money and ignorance. Poor stay poor because capitalism makes inefficient bubbles. No access to markets that enrich.

>Environment / other people have preferences which affect more than dna/iq.
Not true though. Maybe if we compare western world and shittier africa but inside a 1st world country IQ is the deciding factor, not ones parents socioeconomic standing

>Whats the point?
achieving your own goals, enjoying life, and creating offspring
get your self-hating, nihilistic "nothing in life matters, boo hoo" bullshit out of here

>achieving your own goals, enjoying life, and creating offspring
You cant achieve all goals or enjoy same success as others thanks to your IQ though. You will make less money and your dating pool will be objectively worse. Even the offspring you generate is inferior and will be born into poorer family than ones from high IQ parents

This

>You will make less money and your dating pool will be objectively worse. Even the offspring you generate is inferior and will be born into poorer family than ones from high IQ parents

Im sure that the pic related will produce the high quality, well adjusted, non-shizo offspring, no doubt about that.

Attached: 200iq.jpg (198x400, 36K)

Think parents more as things that define your life. Your habits, behaviour, responses, and things you know.

Examples.
Druggies and ghetto. High change child alcholic and smoker like parents or fat.
Rich. Child gets clean food an educated. Not fat and not druggie unless hangs around addictive substances. Unless parents spoil with sugar.
Middle class. Millions compete in school for grades. Result is low diviatotion in grades between students. Environment at home, friends, school defined the person more than their born IQ / dna potential.

If your environment has no access to jobs you cant get employed. Same for making a difference at something like science, medicine, car tech, planes. Best would be to give access to information that can be improved.

Marketing makes people value something more because it gets visibility. People/brands pushed by the environment not by choice.

>Discard all social relations
>Clinge to some useless abstract number
You are really retarded, don't you

How does it feel to be below 70 IQ points?

>ITT

Attached: 20111010.gif (576x747, 92K)

>99.9% human dna is the same
The vast majority of that is pointless small stuff, and background things that ensure the correct working of your systems.
Hell, we share 96% of our DNA with chimps. Does that mean we're only 4% different from them in detactable traits? Obviously not.
Only an extremely small part of your DNA dictates your traits as a human, and when talking about the genetic difference between people, only those genes should be taken into account.
You can't look at Danny DeVito and Shaquille O'Neal and say that they're basically the same because they share 99% of their DNA, because if you exclude all those genes that dictate how big a mitochondrion is, or how long your ocular nerve should be, and such, the difference among those genes will be pretty significant.

You cant make that money without high IQ

He's an exception and you know it.
In the vast majority of people if you increase intelligence and schooling they get more attractive, and inversely, if you decrease those traits they become unattractive.

Yes but DeVito and Shaq are products of their environment. Besides these are anomalies and do not matter if you look at the common pool of people.

Yes dna is important for not lowering fitness of humans. Imagine all bad dna defects make offspring at expotential rate and we support them to keep going. Then most people would be affected by their born potential. Currently the common pool of people is not limited by their dna but their environment. Average person's lack of access to info/environment is limiting more than their genes.

You can't have high IQ if you honestly believe that.

And Im poor as hell, checkmate faggot. Seriously though, average person won't get into the position youre depicting by merit as its extremely unlikely

>Yes but DeVito and Shaq are products of their environment. Besides these are anomalies and do not matter if you look at the common pool of people.
I'm not addressing your argument.
I'm merely being pedantic about your use of the notion that we share almost all our DNA.
Devito and O'Neil are my examples of a very apparent genetic difference (race, size, proportions, muscles, etc).
What they did in life (and how their nature and nurture played a role) is besides the point.

Not him but in the real world financial sucess is not always directly proportional to merit.
A low-IQ person can outcompete a high-IQ one by being cut-throat, by being better at catching an opportunity, by being lucky (in a billion of different ways that I'm sure I don't need to name), by being more likable, etc.

Yes it wasnt accurate and small changes can result in big differences. We all have common ancestor but it doesnt mean different populations dont have things that are more prone to do. Environment is so much bigger factor for all.

where can i take the test that doesn't pop a pay6-bucks-to-mr-signh-paypal paywall upon completion

There arent any good IQ tests anywhere. Just list your options, write guides, and go for efficiency.

Refute this
>There is no significant correlation (or any robust statistical association) between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. Wealth may not mean success but it is the only “hard” number, not some discrete score of achievements. You can buy food with a $30, not with other “successes” s.a. rank, social prominence, or having had a selfie with the Queen.

>An extension of the first flaw that shows how correlations are overestimated. Probability is hard.
>Some argue that IQ measures intellectual capacity—real world results come from, in addition, “wisdom” or patience, or “conscientiousness”, or decision-making or something of the sort. No. It does not even measure intellectual capacity/mental powers.

medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

Attached: selection.png (1076x1698, 634K)

Wealthier people might also just be more outgoing or something, that allows them to get ahead. I know plenty of brainlet chads who get ahead in life despite having average IQ.

Chink Robots.

Attached: 749.png (1724x924, 168K)

>0.1% of people create the math and technology for the rest 99.9% and its all about IQ.
Nope.
0.1% of people feel a natural curiosity and obsession over technology and doing math which makes them engage in cocaine-fueled tinkering and reading and playing with the fields 16 hours a day.
99.99% of people are lazy dumbfaggots who make up memes about IQ to excuse their lack of affinity towards the field and their laziness because it's easier to blame something you have no power over than to accept that you do not even utilize or recognize what you do have power of.

Attached: 1323052344878.gif (200x301, 482K)

You think someone who does physical work or office number crunching has time or motivation to do something that has high threshold to access? That they would not use their money for pleasureduring their short periods of free time.

Not that user but there are pleasures money can't buy, no matter how much of it you have.
Knowledge is one of them. If you want knowledge you have to put in the work. Just like you can't buy your way to having toned muscles, you can't buy your way into being knowledgable.

Attached: marisa correspondence.jpg (755x845, 491K)

>Your proficiency isnt based on your own abilities or free will but a diceroll made before you were born
That is only half true. While genetics matter, your upbringing and habits also affects your IQ.

You can buy professional personal coach. You can have already one in family if your parents have one. Depending on environment you could not have trash food or culture is about being slim or has good traditions.

You can hire the best coach in the world, but you are the one who has to put the effort in to either learning or exercise. He can't do it for you, he can just tell you how you're fucking up and show you better ways to do things. Essentially saving you time.

>99.99% of people are lazy dumbfaggots who make up memes about IQ to excuse their lack of affinity towards the field and their laziness because it's easier to blame something you have no power over than to accept that you do not even utilize or recognize what you do have power of.
Lol

0.1% has the curiosity because theyre capable of understanding complex math, physics and concepts. The rest dont because they struggle even in public schools and are unable to wrap their head around larger, more complex concepts. The natural curiosity you speak of is the result of having a high IQ and enhanced capacity.

Why would a blind man be interested in movies after all? Same thing happens here

Yes but threshold is a lot higher to become fit when your parents fed u fat. You think most fit people have been overweight?

You think they did as much work as someone who was obese and didnt have help.

How much easier it was to someone who with no effort can excercise vs someone who has sugar addiction and is fat. It is not up to the person to do the work it is mostly because the environment has fucked them. Not born to be fat just made by the environment of ignorance.

You can engineer your environment. Having a coach is just adding someone into your environment who will help you achieve the goals you want.

If you are in an ignorant environment like a slum you think someone there could figure things out without outside info? Very low chance vs someone educated.

Inability to teach. Bad teaching and students ability to remember and understand is what causes them to fall at the beginning making it very hard to do higher level stuff that needs knowing the low level.