Lets say you are a guy who had a 1200 SAT and a 90% average and are also a 14:00 5k runner. Would you trade? you'd probably be about a 1500-1550 with a 97% average and a 16:00 5k runner.
Lets say you are a guy who had a 1200 SAT and a 90% average and are also a 14:00 5k runner. Would you trade? you'd probably be about a 1500-1550 with a 97% average and a 16:00 5k runner.
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:
Lets say you are a guy who had a 1200 SAT and a 90% average and are also a 14:00 5k runner. Would you trade? you'd probably be about a 1500-1550 with a 97% average and a 16:00 5k runner.
I'd go for the faster running. No question.
If I was the person you described, then yes. Running is great, but you aren't really going to make any money or win anything big with 14:00. On the other hand, with 1500-1550 SAT type abilities you will make a ton of money. And when you're 40, you won't be running 14:00 anymore but you'll still be smart.
As an idiot, I'd add a full minute to 5k pr to be as smart as some people I know.
sub 15 fr college wrote:
As an idiot, I'd add a full minute to 5k pr to be as smart as some people I know.
Indeed.
sub 15 fr college wrote:
As an idiot, I'd add a full minute to 5k pr to be as smart as some people I know.
I wouldn't because I'm already damn smart!
Life is good.
That would be a poor deal for me. I'm smarter than I am fast, but not smart enough that the same relative speed would make me anything special.
Even if I was a lot smarter--since the fastest guys in America can barely compete at the Olympic level, I can hardly imagine a scenario where anybody other than an otherworldly genius would benefit from the trade.
My SAT scores and GPA were comparably better than my 5K PR, and I would trade my intelligence level with my running ability.
I'm neither a genius nor an elite runner. I'm above average in both. Trading abilities would not result in me becoming a moron or a Gallowalker.
If I were a little less smart but still above average, I could accomplish everything that I've done so far by working harder. Perhaps I'd even be better off if I'd learned earlier to succeed by working hard instead of relying on talent.
I think it would have been a greater accomplishment to have been a B student and a DI runner than an A student and a D3 runner, and I don't do anything now that a B student couldn't learn with more hard work.
I am smarter than I am fast because I am not very fast. However, I wouldn't want to be any dumber. I guess I wouldn't mind being 19 min 5k slow if I could bump my GPA up a point.
On the other hand, do you think Stephen Hawking would trade being a super genius for being able to run?
Considering he can't even walk this is a completely different question
I am about average in both.
Sub 15 runner.
Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:
I am about average in both.
Sub 15 runner.
Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
How intelligent is 15:30?
This thread had white smugness written all over it.
1350 SAT 94% in HS
You Knew It Was Coming wrote:
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:I am about average in both.
Sub 15 runner.
Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
How intelligent is 15:30?
I think there is a flaw in using someones grades and sat's from high school as a measure of intelligence. One could always become a faster runner, while you can not improve how you did in high school. Also I knew plenty of people who had better grades and better sat's than me who are in fact not as smart as me.
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:
I am about average in both.
Sub 15 runner.
Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
Your sense of "average" is quite skewed. A sub-15 min 5K is a lot better than average. A 15:30 is much better than average. I would probably estimate that the "average" 5K for a male runner is around 20 minutes. Maybe even slower than that. Look at road race results.
I've run sub-15, and can't exactly quantify intelligence, but would I trade my intellect for running ability? Definitely not.
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:
1. I am about average in both.
2. Sub 15 runner.
3. Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
4. I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
Based on line #2, line #1 is wrong.
Based on lines #1 and #2, #3 is wrong.
Based on lines #1, #2, and #3, #4 is wrong.
Average is relative. I never scored at a conference meet in track, even one I PRed at. I never won a race in college. I never was better than 3rd on my team and my team never made it to NCAAs. To me, I seem pretty average. Nice try with the proof.
kartelite wrote:
YYYEEESSSSS wrote:1. I am about average in both.
2. Sub 15 runner.
3. Equal to about a 15:30 guy intelligence wise.
4. I don't think being that much smarter would help me.
Based on line #2, line #1 is wrong.
Based on lines #1 and #2, #3 is wrong.
Based on lines #1, #2, and #3, #4 is wrong.
So if someone came on here and said, "I went to Harvard for undergrad, didn't make Phi Beta Kappa, then finished around middle of the class at Yale Law, so I guess I'm around average intelligence," that wouldn't come off as false modesty to you?