# Do You Have to be Smart to be Good at the Rubiks Cube?



## tfkscores (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't mean like good grades smart just generally smart. Im not asking this becuase I want to know if i can solve it i already can [23 seconds]. Particularly do you have to be smart at math because everyone i know says "oh you can do the rubiks cube you must be great at math". I mean i am but im still wondering lol?


----------



## Rubik's Exer (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't think so I am like my papa and think logically at first I thought it was impossible to solve it.


----------



## (X) (Jun 26, 2009)

No No No No No


----------



## GermanCube (Jun 26, 2009)

You don't have to be smart, but you need to be interested in things like learning algorithms and stuff like that - and that's a thing more so called 'smart' people are interested in. 
But it definitely doesn't mean that one has to be smart to solve the cube!


----------



## Enter (Jun 26, 2009)

no you must be wiling to sacrifice free time and learn lots of algorithms


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 26, 2009)

Enter said:


> no you must be wiling to sacrifice free time and learn lots of algorithms


Close, but you don't need lots of algorithms. Turning fast is much more important.

The most important factor is patience, not smartness.


----------



## enigmahack (Jun 26, 2009)

No, but it helps


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Jun 26, 2009)

No, you don't have to be smart, but being able to solve it fast really boosts peoples' opinion of you (dang, you a genius!).


----------



## ISuckAtCubing (Jun 26, 2009)

no, i think im stupid and im can solve the cube


----------



## Me Myself & Pi (Jun 26, 2009)

I think most of all cubers are mathematically minded. (The people I know of, & myself, are that way.) But I think it would make a good poll to see how many of us are that way.


----------



## Yoshikee (Jun 26, 2009)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the youngest person to solve the cube like 3 or 6 i bet that person isn't good at math...


----------



## d4m4s74 (Jun 26, 2009)

you have to have some common sense while learning it (I've seen people who can't even make a cross if I tell them the exact moves)
but you don't really have to be smart


----------



## xEscapeFatex (Jun 26, 2009)

Ya, I've tried to teach my friends just the cross, and when i say 'move the face directly in front of you 180 degrees' they move like the R or L. But on the other hand i think that just learning the cube makes you more logical at thinking because you have a different view of how to do it, unlike other people that think that if they move a face nothing else moves behind it.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 26, 2009)

It depends on your definition of "smart". You definitely don't have to get good grades in order to be able to solve the cube fast, but there are certain qualities that you need (patience, ability to memorize, recognition etc).


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jun 26, 2009)

You have to have fast fingers and good recognition


----------



## tfkscores (Jun 26, 2009)

Yea thats what i think. I think you need a high intelligence i guess but you dont need to be like super smart to do it. I mean especially with the tutorials that are out now there are very little people that figured out how to solve it on there own. and it changes the way you look at almost every puzzle. something like the gordians knot or whatever its called i never could do it before cubing but after its very easy. i guess its just the way your mind develops by cubing. idk if that made sense though


----------



## nitrocan (Jun 26, 2009)

Define smart.


----------



## TemurAmir (Jun 26, 2009)

you need to have really strong muscles in your hands


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Jun 26, 2009)

Actually, you just need to be Yu Nakajima.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Jun 26, 2009)

Yoshikee said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the youngest person to solve the cube like 3 or 6 i bet that person isn't good at math...



Why can't a three year old person be good at math? Obviously he/she wil not prove mathematical theories, but he/she may be good at counting, etc


----------



## edd5190 (Jun 26, 2009)

enigmahack said:


> No, but it helps



Proof?message too short


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 26, 2009)

Yes I'm sorry. In order to be good at Rubik's cube you have to be a soooooooooooooooper genius ala Wile E. Coyote.

Chris


----------



## mcciff2112 (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't think you necessarily have to be smart, but people around you will consider you smart. It's just the non-cuber way of thinking that you have to be a genius to solve a Rubik's Cube.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jun 26, 2009)

Being good at math is NOT required. I am living proof of that.

You have to be smart enough to know that you need patience.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jun 26, 2009)

You probably need to be pretty smart in order to solve it on your own.
Most of the general population isn't aware that speedsolving even exists. Speedsolving is totally different than figuring out how to solve the puzzle.


----------



## tfkscores (Jun 26, 2009)

haha i know we are like a hidden underground community except not really


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jun 26, 2009)

You do not have to be smart. Our schools K-4 teacher can solve a rubik's cube. You only have to learn 4 algorithms to solve the Rubik's Cube and a little bit of thinking.


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 26, 2009)

I'm sure you'll find however, that most people who speedcube have some kind of interest in Math or Computers/Science etc..
It's a very "right brained" thing to do.
I've noticed the majority of the older folks in the cubing community have some sort of career in math or computers..
Which are "right brained" thinker's jobs.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 26, 2009)

Excuse me, but is smart not a relative term? Smart compared to whom or what?


----------



## krazedkat (Jun 26, 2009)

No, just a good memory (admitidly that comes along with intelligence)...


----------



## tfkscores (Jun 26, 2009)

Yea i've been told that i'm right brained and have strong intrests in sceince and math. i think its just a different way right brained people think then the artsy left brained people think


----------



## fundash (Jun 26, 2009)

you just have to be more right brained, i am a total cumputer/ science nerd, and its because i'm right brained and thats more what right brained people are into.


----------



## stiwi griffin (Jun 26, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> You do not have to be smart. Our schools K-4 teacher can solve a rubik's cube. You only have to learn 4 algorithms to solve the Rubik's Cube and a little bit of thinking.


no,actually you just need one.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jun 26, 2009)

No, but most speedcubers are, how should I put this... awesome.



stiwi griffin said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > You do not have to be smart. Our schools K-4 teacher can solve a rubik's cube. You only have to learn 4 algorithms to solve the Rubik's Cube and a little bit of thinking.
> ...



G perm?


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Jun 26, 2009)

"Smartness" is not as important as: 1. Determination. 2. Patience.


----------



## luke1984 (Jun 26, 2009)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> "Smartness" is not as important as: 1. Determination. 2. Patience.



I fully agree. But I do think more intelligent people have the advantage of understanding the cube quicker, learning algorithms faster and developing a personal solving style faster. Also a higher spatial intelligence and memory helps a lot.


----------



## panyan (Jun 26, 2009)

3d perception is much more important than intelligence


----------



## stiwi griffin (Jun 26, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> No, but most speedcubers are, how should I put this... awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no,T perm.i just remerbered stefan's first blindfold method


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 26, 2009)

panyan said:


> 3d perception is much more important than intelligence



Yes. It took me so long to start to see the cube in a more 3-D way.


----------



## royzabeast (Jun 26, 2009)

panyan said:


> 3d perception is much more important than intelligence



Not sure if this was sarcastic, but when I try to teach somebody, this is what holds them back. "Now just move the top, the side with the green middle." They'll turn the front, the left, the right, and the back, but never the top. And then when I say move the front, they'll move the top.

Edit: I think this is why I find that the people who best learn how to solve the cube are usually my close friends that regularly scramble it for me when we're hanging. They've already figured out how a cube moves.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Jun 26, 2009)

luisgepeto said:


> Yoshikee said:
> 
> 
> > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the youngest person to solve the cube like 3 or 6 i bet that person isn't good at math...
> ...



Well, that's what being good at math is, right? Proving..uh...mathematical theories.


----------



## Dene (Jun 27, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Enter said:
> 
> 
> > no you must be wiling to sacrifice free time and learn lots of algorithms
> ...



I would say addiction is a more important factor than patience.


----------



## jacob15728 (Jun 27, 2009)

I think it's a certain type ot types of intelligence. I've seen people who I thought were pretty dull solve one, but I've tried to teach a few people and failed. They usually "fail" in a few areas such as turning the wrong face, turning the faces in the wrong direction, having trouble figuring out where each piece needs to go, etc. Like, I tell them to make a cross and they do, but it's not permuted correctly and they can't figure out what's wrong with their cross, even if I specifically explain how they did it wrong. So I think it's more of a visual/spatial kind of thing. I think any "smart" person can learn it easily, but you even if you're not super smart, you can learn it as long as you have decent visual/spatial reasoning. And keep in mind that intelligence is a relative term. When I say "Not super smart", well, I guess I can't really say that because I don't really think intelligence can be measured. But the truth is, some people strike me as much more clever than others. 

Of course, that's with the beginner's method. It takes even more to learn an advanced method such as the Fridrich. To even comprehend how f2l works, you really need to have an advanced understanding of how the cube works and excellent visual/spatial skills. And of course, there's so many algorithms that you need a good long-term memory to remember them, as well as good recognition skills to recognize OLL and PLL cases. There are two other people in my school who know the Fridrich method, and all three of us are very smart and mathematically-minded. There are others who can do it with beginner's methods, but not nearly as fast.


----------



## panyan (Jun 27, 2009)

rickcube said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > 3d perception is much more important than intelligence
> ...





royzabeast said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > 3d perception is much more important than intelligence
> ...



im not being sarcastic, i do think 3d perception is more important than intelligence


----------



## JTW2007 (Jun 28, 2009)

stiwi griffin said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > No, but most speedcubers are, how should I put this... awesome.
> ...



It can work with both I think. G is probably more optimal though because the one alg can be altered in four different ways.


----------



## Thomas09 (Jun 28, 2009)

If smart means being able to remember and learn stuff, then yes.


----------



## stiwi griffin (Jun 28, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> stiwi griffin said:
> 
> 
> > JTW2007 said:
> ...



it can work with the G too but,set-up moves...


----------



## Nukoca (Jun 28, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> You have to have fast fingers and good recognition.



Not necessarily. How many of us had fast fingers as noobs? That's not really a quality you have to have but more like a skill you have to build.



panyan said:


> 3d perception is much more important than intelligence.



Whenever I'm demonstrating how I solve the cube to people, and they're all like, "What?", my advice to them is to "Think beyond stickers." 3-d perception is very important.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Jun 28, 2009)

you dont have to be that smart, just need to have good memorization/recognition skills


----------



## Erik (Jun 28, 2009)

No, patience and devotion is what matters


----------



## dueone (Jun 28, 2009)

i think the best a cuber need is good reflex in recognition, and of course a fast hand to turn the cube about 6-7 tps


----------



## alifiantoadinugroho (Jun 28, 2009)

I'm stupid and but I can solve the cube


----------



## tfkscores (Jun 28, 2009)

i agree with the world record holder i think hes right.


----------



## nitrocan (Jun 28, 2009)

stiwi griffin said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > No, but most speedcubers are, how should I put this... awesome.
> ...



You don't even need any. 

Heise Method?


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jun 28, 2009)

All that is needed is love for the cube and patience.


----------



## panyan (Jun 28, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > 3d perception is much more important than intelligence.
> ...



im glad we are in agreement


----------



## stiwi griffin (Jun 28, 2009)

nitrocan said:


> stiwi griffin said:
> 
> 
> > JTW2007 said:
> ...


that also works but for a begginer i think it will be harder to understand

edit:it's just me or heise page has a new look


----------



## Rocky0701 (Mar 26, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> In that case, does that mean you have writing problems?


And it's ok since your a newbie to this forum, but i have seen you bump like 5 threads since you joined, most of them being years old. Please stop.


----------



## pipkiksass (Mar 26, 2014)

Rocky0701 said:


> And it's ok since your a newbie to this forum, but i have seen you bump like 5 threads since you joined, most of them being years old. Please stop.



Lol - thought you meant me!!!

I guess this is a closeable thread:

Question: Do you have to be smart to be good at the Rubik's cube?

Answer: No.

[/thread]


----------



## Rocky0701 (Mar 26, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> Lol - thought you meant me!!!
> 
> I guess this is a closeable thread:
> 
> ...


Oh, sorry. No, i was just expanding on what you were saying.
Do you have to be smart to be good at Rubik's cube? NOOOO!


----------



## 1LastSolve (Apr 2, 2014)

Is this even a question? I've had 100% in every single subject since June (Got a 98.7 in English :c), yet my Rubik's cube average is around 45 Seconds, and my PB is only 24.9 Seconds. I honestly doubt that Approx. 13,000 people have higher grades than me.


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 3, 2014)

1LastSolve said:


> Is this even a question? I've had 100% in every single subject since June (Got a 98.7 in English :c), yet my Rubik's cube average is around 45 Seconds, and my PB is only 24.9 Seconds. I honestly doubt that Approx. 13,000 people have higher grades than me.



I'd imagine far more than 13,000 have achieved a sub-24.9 single at home. Probably closer to 20,000; maybe a little higher. That's accounting for those who have around 40 second official singles, and also folks like me who won't ever compete. 

Congrats on almost a year of 100% though. Perhaps if you spent less time on schoolwork and more time on cubing, you'd get that average down a little! 

Also, is it possible to achieve 100% in English? Surely any analytical subject like English can only be marked subjectively? In which case, you should be proud of 98.7%. 

I got a 72% in an English exam once, and I thought that was good!


----------



## MadaraMangekyou (Apr 3, 2014)

I think that is not a thing of being Smart, because anyone with certain determination can solve the cube, Is a thing of affinity, the last year i meet a guy, i explained him for around two minutes how to solve the cube, then i gave him the cube, his first solve was of 1:30.00!!!, but he is not a genius at college, no way... i only have two explanations for this 1) good fine motricity, developed mostly due to fast typing on the old msn messenger (he can do (R'D'RD)x6 in around of 2,5 seconds and he is a begginer) 2) good visual memory, developed maybe in a game called brain buddies... the fine motricity plus the good visual memory equals to a higher affinity with speedcubing, but wait!, being smart is more than fine motricity and visual memory, isn't it?


----------



## 1LastSolve (Apr 3, 2014)

@pip xD That's why I got a 98.7... The stupid paper didn't have a rubric D:< Basically, anything with a Rubric is simple. srsly, am flatrd. But honestly, I actually do think that it's about 20,000. I mean, I've never entered a competition before, and I seriously doubt that others at my low cubing level have gone to competitions. qq i think two hours is enough for studying... and I can dedicate 30 Mins - 1 Hour to cubing, 1 Hour to Martial Arts, and 2 hours into chess... But I think I can make some spare time over the weekends, I mean that's 5 hours less of sk00l stuf.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Apr 3, 2014)

Well Justin Beiber is..... never mind.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Apr 3, 2014)

1LastSolve said:


> Is this even a question? I've had 100% in every single subject since June (Got a 98.7 in English :c), yet my Rubik's cube average is around 45 Seconds, and my PB is only 24.9 Seconds. I honestly doubt that Approx. 13,000 people have higher grades than me.



So... if you spend most of your time studying and get high grades in school and if getting high grades means you are smart, then being smarter probably means slower at the cube because you spend less time cubing. And if you spend a lot of time cubing to get fast and don't do your homework then you get poor grades which means you are not as smart.

Therefore, the smarter you are, the slower you will be.


----------



## kcl (Apr 3, 2014)

sneaklyfox said:


> So... if you spend most of your time studying and get high grades in school and if getting high grades means you are smart, then being smarter probably means slower at the cube because you spend less time cubing. And if you spend a lot of time cubing to get fast and don't do your homework then you get poor grades which means you are not as smart.
> 
> Therefore, the smarter you are, the slower you will be.



Poor grades =/= not smart

Poor grades = bad work ethic


----------



## sneaklyfox (Apr 3, 2014)

Like anyone who can solve a Rubik's cube is smarter than someone who can't?

Think Justin Bieber... naah...


----------



## brian724080 (Apr 3, 2014)

sneaklyfox said:


> So... if you spend most of your time studying and get high grades in school and if getting high grades means you are smart, then being smarter probably means slower at the cube because you spend less time cubing. And if you spend a lot of time cubing to get fast and don't do your homework then you get poor grades which means you are not as smart.
> 
> Therefore, the smarter you are, the slower you will be.



Haha screw logic


----------



## rowehessler (Apr 3, 2014)

out of all the cubers i know, id say I'm the least academically successful by far, not saying I'm stupid or anything, but its strange.


----------



## MarcelP (Apr 3, 2014)

1LastSolve said:


> I mean, I've never entered a competition before, and I seriously doubt that others at my low cubing level have gone to competitions.



Many first timers at competition are in the 45- 60 seconds range. Being slow is not a showstoppper  I highly doubt intellect has anything to do with cube speed. I am a smart guy (have a BA degree), but I am still quite slow


----------



## kcl (Apr 3, 2014)

rowehessler said:


> out of all the cubers i know, id say I'm the least academically successful by far, not saying I'm stupid or anything, but its strange.



I would bet I'm up there with you.. My grades are kinda unfortunate.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 3, 2014)

MarcelP said:


> Many first timers at competition are in the 45- 60 seconds range. Being slow is not a showstoppper  I highly doubt intellect has anything to do with cube speed. I am a smart guy (have a *BA degree*), but I am still quite slow



BA Degree? Don't you know a BS is required to be considered smart?






(just kidding, I'm also a BA)


----------



## sneaklyfox (Apr 3, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> BA Degree? Don't you know a BS is required to be considered smart?



Oh goody, then I'm smart! Sucks to you if you're in highschool or younger cuz you haven't had the chance to be smart yet.


----------



## ILMZS20 (Apr 3, 2014)

i think to get to a really amazing professional level like sub 9/8 you have to be smart cause if you are not it would take so much practice and logically aswell as fast thinking of whats the best to do in what situation you just couldnt get that down i think. you can get fast whatsoever, just not that amazing i guess.


----------



## CuberAtCanada (Apr 3, 2014)

You would need a good memory to memorize algorithms, and good recognition of cases to get rid of any pauses. I mean, that wouldn't be the kind of smart one expects, would it?


----------



## jeff081692 (Apr 3, 2014)

The OP mentioned math specifically and to that I would say that some people say they are bad at math and it is not because they are not smart in it but they didn't have to motivation to work through the fundamentals in an intuitive way or probably just got by from memorizing formulas without understanding how they were derived in the first place. A lot of people think they are just not a math person and it's become a socially acceptable thing for these people. http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/ that's a good read on the topic.

So ultimately having good motivation and being willing to put in work is much more important for being successful in cubing and anything in life.


----------



## KongShou (Apr 3, 2014)

I'd say being academically successful will make you slower at cubing. I am now preparing for all sort of stuff, University application, exams, Olympiad maths etc and i simply do not have the time to practice like i used to now. I've all but given up on trying to sub 10.



Edit: 1000th post!!!


----------



## DuffyEdge (Apr 3, 2014)

KongShou said:


> I'd say being academically successful will make you slower at cubing. I am now preparing for all sort of stuff, University application, exams, Olympiad maths etc and i simply do not have the time to practice like i used to now. I've all but given up on trying to sub 10.



This doesn't necessarily mean that if you aren't academically successful, then you wouldn't have other commitments.


----------



## KongShou (Apr 3, 2014)

DuffyEdge said:


> This doesn't necessarily mean that if you aren't academically successful, then you wouldn't have other commitments.



True, but my original point was that academically successful =/= good at cubing. In fact, it might make it worse.


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 4, 2014)

KongShou said:


> True, but my original point was that academically successful =/= good at cubing. In fact, it might make it worse.



An anecdote, if I may?

My best friend at uni was a genius. I mean _proper_ genius, not IQ-rated, or what-have-you. He was from Northern Ireland, and was top of the national results for all of his A-Level subjects (Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry). This means first, not top 5% or anything, actually first. He also played football at national schools level, was grade 8 piano, and spent about 5-8 hours a day playing online poker. 

In their maths tutorials, they were given a question sheet to answer. These sheets have around 6 questions on, and they have a week until the next tutorial. Most students are expected to attempt around 4 questions. Credit is given for working, even if you don't arrive at an answer. My flat was 10 minutes walk from the maths faculty. Without fail, he'd have completed all 6 questions on the walk back!

At the other end of the spectrum, you will find a lot of people at any university who are holding on by the skin of their teeth. These people have to put in e.g. 10+ hours a day in order to keep up with the crowd, who might be putting in e.g. 5 hours work, with the 'gifted' few only needing to put in a token amount of effort. 

When it came to finals, my friend walked out with over 98% average across all of his exams. One of the 'teeth-skinners' at my college walked out with 94%.

So what can we conclude from this? Both achieved a top 1st class honours degree from a good university with 90+% average in finals. Both are clearly 'smart', if you judge intelligence purely by results. But while one had enough spare time to hang out, play pool, watch movies, drink, smoke, etc., the other probably struggled to find enough time to eat and drink in the day, after catching up on work!

Whilst I think being above a certain threshold level of intelligence is helpful for cubing (you have to have the propensity to think in a certain way, and a reasonable memory), I don't think that there is any requirement to be 'smart'. At least not 'results' smart. 

Other than the fact that it results in you having a lot more 'free' time, I also don't think being intellectually gifted is a necessary prerequisite.

In my most humble opinion anyone (perhaps below a certain age threshold, c.25-30) could probably be sub-12 if they had no significant restraints on the time available to them for cubing.

In other news, BS is BSc in the UK. BS means... well, B.S.!!!!

In other other news, all degrees from my university, including sciences, are awarded as arts degrees. My friend got an MA (as did I).

Good luck in the Olympiad, Kong - it's fun! (mostly because there's less pressure on this than on true public exams or entry papers, I suppose!)


----------



## KongShou (Apr 4, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> An anecdote, if I may?
> 
> My best friend at uni was a genius. I mean _proper_ genius, not IQ-rated, or what-have-you. He was from Northern Ireland, and was top of the national results for all of his A-Level subjects (Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry). This means first, not top 5% or anything, actually first. He also played football at national schools level, was grade 8 piano, and spent about 5-8 hours a day playing online poker.
> 
> ...



Wow. Nice! An actual genius I see. Did he study maths? Lol

I do actually believe that he can answer the question in the walk back. I personally also know people like that. People who get gold medals in the IMO. The horrible horrible stuff id do to just get into IMO. 

Got a distinction in BMO2. Thats top 25% out of the top 100 people in the country. In fact the cut off was 19/40. I got 23/40. Should have been 29, but I made the biggest facepalm mistake ever. Oh well. Missed the IMO team selection camp by 2 marks.  Better luck next year!

Also props off at being so modest. Oxford is more than just a good university. Its one of the best in the world!


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 4, 2014)

Being a top level competitor in any field takes a combination of ability (in cubing "intelligence" and just dexterity with fingers) and work ethic. The amount of work ethic required is inversely proportional to natural ability.


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 4, 2014)

I've been reading this thread without really commenting, but people saying if you're going to be academically successful you can't be good at cubing.

Feliks got an ATAR 99.90 (the 2nd highest possible result) in our state, so the top 0.1 percentile last year, yet it didn't stop him from getting at least 5+ WRs, and being world champion in a few events.

This isn't saying you need to be smart to be fast, it's saying that you can still get amazing grades whilst being fast, so people should stop using it as an excuse. I'm pretty sure you could fine at least 20 mins a day to practise even if you're in a "no life allowed" course like Engineering, let alone high school...

Practise is a chore (unless you really enjoy it) so you fill your free time by being on the forums, watching TV shows/facebook/going out.

In fact there are very few things that you could actually use as an excuse. Examples;
-you don't want to practise: sure
-you have some medical condition

Also similar in the age vs cubing thread where people argued "older cubers are slower because they don't have time to practise" which again is BS.

Maybe if you want to practise 5 hours a day like some people seem to, but my honest opinion is that daily practise (even 10-20 minutes) is just as effective as doing several hours.


----------



## MarcelP (Apr 4, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> BA Degree? Don't you know a BS is required to be considered smart?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL.. I might go for a Master some what later. I just finished my Ba last year (at age 43 )


sneaklyfox said:


> Oh goody, then I'm smart!



What did you study? I always knew you where smart


----------



## KongShou (Apr 4, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I've been reading this thread without really commenting, but people saying if you're going to be academically successful you can't be good at cubing.
> 
> Feliks got an ATAR 99.90 (the 2nd highest possible result) in our state, so the top 0.1 percentile last year, yet it didn't stop him from getting at least 5+ WRs, and being world champion in a few events.
> 
> ...



I disagree. Feliks was already world champion for a few years before taking his exams. Even tho I didn't improve, I didnt regress at all either. We all know that feliks had the ability he has now a year ago. He simply proved it in competition. I seriously doubt he can get from, say, sub 9 to sub7 whilst taking exams and performing amazingly in them.


----------



## brian724080 (Apr 4, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Maybe if you want to practise 5 hours a day like some people seem to, but my honest opinion is that daily practise (even 10-20 minutes) is just as effective as doing several hours.



That's very true -- nobody cares and knows how long you practice, because the point of practice is to focus on one's shortcomings and improve.


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 4, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> ...in the age vs cubing thread where people argued "older cubers are slower because they don't have time to practise" which again is BS.



Tim, I agreed with almost 100% of what you said... and then you said this!

Firstly, this is not the point of the 'age vs cubing' thread. The point of that thread is to identify trends in times against age. The most interesting part of that analysis is actually between the ages of 11 and 21, but that's another matter. With regards to this discussion: from the age of 21, people just get slower. There are a few exceptions, but that's the trend.

Is this because they don't have time to practise? No. Everybody has SOME time to practice.

Is it because they have less 'free' time? In many cases, and in part, yes. I say in part because this can only be one element of what makes a cuber "slower"; however to say that older cubers not having time to practise is "BS" is dismissive, naive, and false.



Tim Major said:


> Maybe if you want to practise 5 hours a day like some people seem to, but my honest opinion is that daily practise (even 10-20 minutes) is just as effective as doing several hours.



I cube for around 30 minutes a day, 4/5 days a week. I'd like to have more time to practise.

I'll use Noah's terminology: "deliberate" practice, to avoid confusion. By and large, I lack the discipline to spend my 30 minutes doing any kind of deliberate practice. Every time I pick up a cube I think "I'll practise BLD crosses", or "I'll work on my lookahead"... although I start out doing that, I just enjoy solving too much!

What if, for one month, I spent all of my cubing time doing deliberate practice. That's maybe 8-10 hours. I'd expect to see a pretty good improvement in my times.

Let's consider for a moment how this compares to a 15 year old who cubes for 4/5 hours a day. In the same month they'd spend between 120 and 150 hours practising. If they spent just 10% of this time doing deliberate practice, they would still be doing more deliberate practice than me. If you subscribe to Noah's 'mountain' theory (and I do), the 15 year old would also have cemented the new skills learnt during their 15 hours of deliberate practice with a further 135 hours of non-deliberate practice.

How, therefore, can daily practice of 10-20 minutes be just as effective as doing several hours?

I can only agree with your assertion if you were to add the following caveats:

10-20 minutes *deliberate* practice is just as effective as several hours *where only 10-20 minutes of those several hours are spend doing deliberate practice*.

Because time = time.

I'd like to think I'll be sub-15, or maybe a little faster, someday. I'm in no rush - I'll get there in my own time. Could I practise more? Maybe. Could I practise smarter/better? Definitely. If I practised either more, or better, I'd certainly improve faster.

I don't use my age as an excuse, either in relation to my dexterity or demands on my time. I do have time to practice. However the fact that I have _less_ available time to practise than a school age child is an incontrovertible truth.

Back on-topic: the same is true of a school-age cuber. While one 'smart' child may achieve effortless exam results, leaving them abundant 'free' time to cube, etc., another child may work very hard to achieve the same results. Achieving the same results leads many to consider this child equally 'smart'.

As a result, you can't conclude anything from 'results' smart, or relate the amount of time a young person has to spare to their exam results. As there's no other realistic and reliable measure for 'intelligence', I don't think there's any conclusions that can be drawn here whatsoever.

*Do you HAVE to be smart to be a good cuber?* No, certainly not. Especially not 'exam' smart.

*Does being 'smart' help?* Even if we could define 'smart', there's no way to know for sure.

I'd argue that an understanding of the mechanics of the cube requires a little of that ephemeral quality known as 'intelligence'. I'd also argue that someone could fail all of their school exams, while still being intelligent.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 4, 2014)

MarcelP said:


> LOL.. I might go for a Master some what later. I just finished my Ba last year (at age 43 )




Congratulations Marcel! I just graduated last year also, at 29 years old. Still older than average. I think at an older age, we have more of an appreciation for college than someone right out of high school. I definitely feel like I was much more diligent than when I was 19 or 20 years old, and that led to me being more successful and gaining a lot more from my education. After I finish teaching for a couple years in Korea, I also plan to get my MA in Language Teaching (my BA was Linguistics).


----------



## jeff081692 (Apr 4, 2014)

I think everything comes down to time management. When I was younger I had all the time in the world to practice so time management didn't matter I was even the best on the chess team and was a part of a math team then and still became valedictorian in 8th grade and highschool and people thought I was a genius but I promise you I'm not. When I got a lot of responsibilities there was always something important I could be doing at all times and I had to make time to continue improving at the level I would like. The fewer activities you do the easier it is to become good at multiple of them so it's very possible to score top grades while also becoming a good cuber at the same time as long as you do not take on too many extra activities beyond that. I would guess that when a lot of people became adults they found that it's much easier on their schedule to either practice less per day or not practice everyday and the second one in particular stalls progress while the first slows it down. 8 hours a day on school work and 1-2 hours on cubing is not hard if you make cubing a priority. For me it meant watching less tv at the end of the day and not playing video games and chess like I used to.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Apr 5, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I've been reading this thread without really commenting, but people saying if you're going to be academically successful you can't be good at cubing.
> 
> Feliks got an ATAR 99.90 (the 2nd highest possible result) in our state, so the top 0.1 percentile last year, yet it didn't stop him from getting at least 5+ WRs, and being world champion in a few events.
> 
> ...


I thought Feliks would have like, D's in every subject. Is this what they call...
Hope? *-* 

/practicesallnight


----------



## n00bCube (Apr 9, 2014)

I've always been totally crap at maths, but I can solve several different twisty puzzles, from the 2x2 to things like 4x4 shape mods, I've not attempted anything more complicated than something like a 4x4 shape mod yet, basically because I don't have any puzzle that's more complicated than that yet.


----------



## Cubewerkz (Apr 10, 2014)

I would say you need to be focused to be good at something like cubing. Like the Forest Gump character who ends up good in ping pong, distance running, you can be good in something if you are very focused on doing it well. Practice can get you better at something but being smart is different. At some point, you can't get better(point of diminishing return) and you need at different way of doing things. Like what Einstein said to get different results, you have to do something different. Being smart will look at the same problem from a different angle and different perspective and coming out with even better solution to an old problem.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 10, 2014)

I think you have to be smart to be really good with cube theory, but as far as just solving the thing fast, you don't need anything but quick fingers and a lot of good practice.


----------



## ilikecubing (Apr 10, 2014)

I don't see any relation between being fast on the Rubiks cube and being smart. I know quite a few people who are fast at the cube but they ain't that smart and practical from what I observe. But I also know people who are smart and have decent times, but surprisingly not faster than the non smart and non practical ones I know. 

As when it comes to comparing with grades. I feel that getting good grades requires not only knowledge and memory but also the willingness to do planned study. So, if it is safe to assume that people who top in academics are people who like to plan out their study schedule, then maybe they do the same for cubing. They plan how they improve. Example - A CFOP solver plans and sets a deadline for learning advanced F2L algs to add to his trick bank, or similarly a cuber decides to get a sub1 ao12 for all his PLLs and he accordingly plans on how he will achieve that( 2 PLLs a day for so and so time) etc. Not saying that it is true for everyone. Ofcourse it is not necessary that very fast cubers are good at studies, they maybe bad too, and vice versa.



qqwref said:


> I think you have to be smart to be really good with cube theory, but as far as just solving the thing fast, you don't need anything but quick fingers and a lot of good practice.



I second that


----------



## CubezUBR (Apr 10, 2014)

Well i don't know if what i'm about to say has already been said, but...
If you gave a cube to a person who finds it hard to concentrate, cant read, count, add, visualise,focus, think and learn. Then you will have a very hard time teaching them
similarly, if you gave a cube to a person with dementia or amnesia or strong dyslexia etc etc then you wont be able to teach them (my mum is an example)

But saying that; lots of cubers are young, and cant do proper maths, haven't developed their brains fully yet, are childish in the way they think, and are not smart. They are still good cubers. A lot of the good cubers are young cubers, for many reasons: finger speed, ease to learn, free time, motivation etc.

So although it probably helps if your logic of thinking, your concentration, your visualisation is good;
But no. You don't have to be smart to be good at the Rubik's cube


----------

