4 ms·

The article buried in the middle what to do about the ones who fall through the cracks. Speaking from a Texas point of view, there's three big problems: 1) Foc

The article buried in the middle what to do about the ones who fall through the cracks. Speaking from a Texas point of view, there's three big problems: 1) Focusing on athletics. 2)Lack-luster public schools and of course the be-all end-all: 3) Crappy parents. What are the people who were "gifted" but live a mediocre life supposed to do? Be bitter and drink for 40-60 years?

tptacek 10y ago
The notion that an identified aptitude for calculation, or written expression, or memorization, or abstract symbol manipulation entitles one to something more than a "mediocre" life is worth challenging, for several reasons.
- goda90 10y ago
  I think they are saying that someone should be entitled to the same opportunity, despite their home school district and parents. If they don't excel despite those opportunities, nothing entitles them to one life or another. Protecting children from forces beyond their control has long been a goal of many societies and I'd say that's worth keeping.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  We as a society would be better off if those people are provided with growth opportunities.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities; that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.
    - adamnemecek 10y ago
      We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Perhaps, but even in a utilitarian analysis it's worth challenging the idea that our outcomes would be maximized by further advantaging people with the skills we typically associate with "high IQ".
        techbio 10y ago
        "In Europe and the U.S., support for research and educational programs for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more toward inclusion." Not sure if utilitarian or humanitarian is the better metric, or if there is a real choice. The article does not seem to address the downsides to high prospect/low achievers.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Clearly there is a choice, since there's an obvious deontological argument against choosing a set of sparsely distributed human attributes as a basis for privileging some people above others.
        techbio 10y ago
        If it is so common in sports, why not in intellectual development? As far as I can tell, we in the US have more resources devoted to creating environments where equality is tested in only in material status, and to transcend this fairly prescribed order is to risk ostracism.
      - goodJobWalrus 10y ago
        > We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI. It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.
    - adamnemecek 10y ago
      We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  No - They're definitely entitled to a better life. But so is everyone else. The total untapped human potential is staggering once you take into account the effects of war, racism, sexism, general discrimination, mental illness, physical illness, disincentives, and poverty. At least most of these have improved in the last century. I hope people realize this is not just about altruism, the economic boost would help everyone.
D_Alex 10y ago
>What are the people who were "gifted" but live a mediocre life supposed to do? Be bitter and drink for 40-60 years? It is hard to give a brief yet universally applicable answer to "What are _____ supposed to do?", but neither "be bitter" nor "drink" is right. The best advice I know of is "take well thought out action in pursuit of a worthwhile goal", which of course raises the question of what a worthwhile goal might be. Fortunately, there are many such goals, you don't have to worry about picking the very best goal. Health, fitness and education related goals seem like a good places to start, they will improve the capabilities needed to reach future goals, whatever those might be.

tptacek 10y ago

The notion that an identified aptitude for calculation, or written expression, or memorization, or abstract symbol manipulation entitles one to something more than a "mediocre" life is worth challenging, for several reasons.

goda90 10y ago
I think they are saying that someone should be entitled to the same opportunity, despite their home school district and parents. If they don't excel despite those opportunities, nothing entitles them to one life or another. Protecting children from forces beyond their control has long been a goal of many societies and I'd say that's worth keeping.
adamnemecek 10y ago
We as a society would be better off if those people are provided with growth opportunities.
- tptacek 10y ago
  We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities; that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.
  - adamnemecek 10y ago
    We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Perhaps, but even in a utilitarian analysis it's worth challenging the idea that our outcomes would be maximized by further advantaging people with the skills we typically associate with "high IQ".
      - techbio 10y ago
        "In Europe and the U.S., support for research and educational programs for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more toward inclusion." Not sure if utilitarian or humanitarian is the better metric, or if there is a real choice. The article does not seem to address the downsides to high prospect/low achievers.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Clearly there is a choice, since there's an obvious deontological argument against choosing a set of sparsely distributed human attributes as a basis for privileging some people above others.
        techbio 10y ago
        If it is so common in sports, why not in intellectual development? As far as I can tell, we in the US have more resources devoted to creating environments where equality is tested in only in material status, and to transcend this fairly prescribed order is to risk ostracism.
    - goodJobWalrus 10y ago
      > We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI. It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.
  - adamnemecek 10y ago
    We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
No - They're definitely entitled to a better life. But so is everyone else. The total untapped human potential is staggering once you take into account the effects of war, racism, sexism, general discrimination, mental illness, physical illness, disincentives, and poverty. At least most of these have improved in the last century. I hope people realize this is not just about altruism, the economic boost would help everyone.

D_Alex 10y ago

>What are the people who were "gifted" but live a mediocre life supposed to do? Be bitter and drink for 40-60 years? It is hard to give a brief yet universally applicable answer to "What are _____ supposed to do?", but neither "be bitter" nor "drink" is right. The best advice I know of is "take well thought out action in pursuit of a worthwhile goal", which of course raises the question of what a worthwhile goal might be. Fortunately, there are many such goals, you don't have to worry about picking the very best goal. Health, fitness and education related goals seem like a good places to start, they will improve the capabilities needed to reach future goals, whatever those might be.