What I'm getting at is that it takes a certain type of personality to want to push yourself so much at a young age to be able to participate at the olympiads. Furthemore, the type of skills necessary to get to the olympiads isn't that relevant to the type of skills necessary to conduct high level mathematics research (see Tao).
Invisible geniuses: The advancement of the knowledge frontier (IMO strong)

You seem really sane yourself.
Oh good more fetishization of contest math for teenagers. Seriously almost all of the American IMOers I knew in college had serious mental health problems and went off the rails, dropped out of a PhD, or disappeared to a secretive hedge fund never to be heard from again . Almost every single one. I envy none of them.
Are you f**king stupid? This is the actual outcome of the many I know from college and my own time on the competitive math circuit in the US. The people one level down but still near the top are all very successful and much more balanced

You seem really sane yourself.
Oh good more fetishization of contest math for teenagers. Seriously almost all of the American IMOers I knew in college had serious mental health problems and went off the rails, dropped out of a PhD, or disappeared to a secretive hedge fund never to be heard from again . Almost every single one. I envy none of them.
Are you f**king stupid? This is the actual outcome of the many I know from college and my own time on the competitive math circuit in the US. The people one level down but still near the top are all very successful and much more balanced
Is this a subtle "I attended 02138" humblebrag?

calm down
You seem really sane yourself.
Oh good more fetishization of contest math for teenagers. Seriously almost all of the American IMOers I knew in college had serious mental health problems and went off the rails, dropped out of a PhD, or disappeared to a secretive hedge fund never to be heard from again . Almost every single one. I envy none of them.
Are you f**king stupid? This is the actual outcome of the many I know from college and my own time on the competitive math circuit in the US. The people one level down but still near the top are all very successful and much more balanced

What I'm getting at is that it takes a certain type of personality to want to push yourself so much at a young age to be able to participate at the olympiads. Furthemore, the type of skills necessary to get to the olympiads isn't that relevant to the type of skills necessary to conduct high level mathematics research (see Tao).
Yes, olympiad skills and research skills are very different. World class mathematicians don't hone their research skills by practicing olympiad problems. However, there is a latent variable (let's call it math IQ) that is strongly correlated with both of these skills. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous.

You have a point. Most of those who "dropped out" initially pursued pure math (instead of econ, computer science, etc.) What they found was that, the higher they go the harder it becomes to keep up with true worldclass mathematicians. In high school they were superstars. In college, they were straightA students. In top graduate math programs like Princeton or Harvard, they were just average so they "lost interest".
Oh good more fetishization of contest math for teenagers. Seriously almost all of the American IMOers I knew in college had serious mental health problems and went off the rails, dropped out of a PhD, or disappeared to a secretive hedge fund never to be heard from again . Almost every single one. I envy none of them.

Tao explained it on numberphile. Olympiad is about speed and executing specific tricks. Research is about persistence, asking the right questions, etc. Research is also more collaborative, so you might suck at olympiad but still be useful in a team context. I know many mathematicians who are kind of slow but are able to solve hard problems given enough time and persistence. Olympiad people might get discouraged and frustrated with research level math and are often better suited for programming jobs.
What I'm getting at is that it takes a certain type of personality to want to push yourself so much at a young age to be able to participate at the olympiads. Furthemore, the type of skills necessary to get to the olympiads isn't that relevant to the type of skills necessary to conduct high level mathematics research (see Tao).
Yes, olympiad skills and research skills are very different. World class mathematicians don't hone their research skills by practicing olympiad problems. However, there is a latent variable (let's call it math IQ) that is strongly correlated with both of these skills. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous.

You seem really sane yourself.
Oh good more fetishization of contest math for teenagers. Seriously almost all of the American IMOers I knew in college had serious mental health problems and went off the rails, dropped out of a PhD, or disappeared to a secretive hedge fund never to be heard from again . Almost every single one. I envy none of them.
Are you f**king stupid? This is the actual outcome of the many I know from college and my own time on the competitive math circuit in the US. The people one level down but still near the top are all very successful and much more balanced
GTFO with your anecdotal data. We have the results from all IMO contestants, right there in the paper. You're wrong, take the L.

Wow those graphs are incredible. The OLS fit is frighteningly good. I need to stick this in the face of the popular trend these days of mathematicians claiming that competition maths is irrelevant to "real research" and that IMO gold medalists have no advantage over others. It doesn't help that people like Terry Tao spread this belief. I don't dispute that solving IMO problems and doing research are two very different activities, but the signal produced by being an IMO gold medalist is massive and undeniable.
That is not the OLS fit, and you out yourself as a moron (how many datapoints do you think they have?). It is a binscatter, the rising popularity of which is bad for empirical research.

Tao explained it on numberphile. Olympiad is about speed and executing specific tricks. Research is about persistence, asking the right questions, etc. Research is also more collaborative, so you might suck at olympiad but still be useful in a team context. I know many mathematicians who are kind of slow but are able to solve hard problems given enough time and persistence. Olympiad people might get discouraged and frustrated with research level math and are often better suited for programming jobs.
And it's true, however, it is also true that it is pathetic how he tries to downplay his natural abilities. I feel geniuses like him have a deep fear of being unbearable to others if they are too proud of their achievements