To what degree is it possible to raise a maths genius deliberately

>>8867127
~36°C

>>8867131
That seems a little high, I would imagine cooler temperatures are easier to work in

be very intelligent and fug a very intelligent woman

>>8867133
Are we talking about human maths geniuses or do you want some reptilian?

>>8867143
either is fine

>>8867127
parenting methods barely affect that kind of stuff. this is a scientific consensus.

>>8867156
surely whether or not you expose the child to math early makes a huge difference?

>>8867156
Actual methods of raising your kid's IQ? Obviously a common nurture doesn't do much to raise someone's IQ, but what if you deliberately raise your child to be an ubergenius?

>>8867156
I'm sure forcing kids to learn would make them into geniuses

>>8867138
kek

>>8867156
>parenting methods barely affect that kind of stuff. this is a scientific consensus.
This isn't true at all.

I just started reading "surely you're joking mr feynman" and I have to say if you want your kid to be top of the class they've gotta have a legitimate interest in this stuff.

>Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice — that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status.

tfw you will always be a brainlet

http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-raise-a-genius-lessons-from-a-45-year-study-of-super-smart-children-1.20537

>>8867127
Be a math genius yourself, breed with another math genius (Or at least someone above average in math), get them interested in some form of applied math early.

I wouldn't've minded being forced into some sort genius education from a young age.
I still wouldn't be as smart as natural born geniuses but I'd be a hell of a lot smarter.

>>8867127
Not very.

Math ability is correlated strongly with g, which is .5 to .8 heritable. It's estimated that only 1 in 100,000 people are genetically capable of earning more than a C grade in Harvard's Math 55 course, which is a good threshold for extreme math ability. An A grade may well be a 1-in-a-million accomplishment, equivalent to becoming a tenured math professor at an Ivy.

Someone like Tao is even rarer than that. He is one of the 10 most distinguished mathematicians in the world, which would put his quantitative IQ in the 180s *at minimum.* To get that kind of quantitative IQ without a huge amount of genetic supersaturation (150+ IQs from both mother and father) is close to impossible, and even then you're looking at a crap shoot.

File: 3DB0FAC000000578-0-image-a-51_1488106211253.jpg (75KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 634x476px

>>8867259
>which would put his quantitative IQ in the 180s *at minimum
That would make sense as math IQ.
But then he doesn't like Topology so I wouldn't expect him to do better than an expert topologist in a Topology question.
Past 140s IQs are retarded.