This sort of tracks for me. The smartest people I know as adults mostly fucked around a lot and had wide interests that all culminated in them doing a great thing greatly. The smartest people I know as kids spent hours grinding on something and crashed out in college and are mostly average well-to-dos now.

▲

bitwize 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm reminded of a meme on Facebook my wife showed me that was a two-dimensional graph of SAT score vs. GPA. The corner with the highest SAT scores but the lowest GPAs was shaded in and labelled "These are the people I want to hang out with."

▲

sointeresting 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Graduated with a 1.7 GPA and a 32 on the ACT. My parents were a little dismayed.

▲

idiotsecant 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure we should romanticize ADHD, which is what you call that region. If those people could be high SAT and high GPA they would prefer it. Signed, someone in that region.

▲

esseph 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Who said anything about ADHD?

▲

idiotsecant 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That's who lives in that region, almost exclusively.

	▲	nradov 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Nah. There are plenty of intelligent students who don't have ADHD but are either lazy or rebellious enough to not care about conventional measures of academic success.
	▲	irishcoffee 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sure isn't. I annihilated the SATs. My grades were only good in high school because I was just "gifted" enough to get As without studying. I do not have and never had ADHD. I also never learned how to study. I almost failed out of college. I didn't know how to study. I didn't have the habits. I sure had a lot of fun in high school and college though.

▲

tayo42 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What does the reverse imply? High GPA, low SAT?

	▲	irishcoffee 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably the stupid-and-diligent bit. > In 1933, while overseeing the writing of Truppenführung, the manual for leading combined arms formations, Hammerstein-Equord made one of the most historically prescient observations on leadership. During the writing effort, he offered his personal view of officers, classifying them in a way only he could: > “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.” https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/10/08/the-four-classes-o...

▲

georgeburdell 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many of the children in first group didn’t you meet?

	▲	nkmnz 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The selection bias might not be relevant if the message is not "slack around as kid, it will make you great later!" but "prodigy youth doesn't guarantee greatness later, as well as non-prodigy youth doesn't prevent you from becoming grat later".