3 ms·

If you've spent any amount of time in education (or you have any faith in the data), then it is patently obvious that there is indeed a set of "un-smart" kids.

If you've spent any amount of time in education (or you have any faith in the data), then it is patently obvious that there is indeed a set of "un-smart" kids. We can quibble about how big that group is, but they definitely exist. It's not their fault, they just got a bad set of numbers in the polygenetic lottery or were subjected to environmental stresses that caused lasting damage. Pretending that they're smart is a brutal act of cruelty that only serves to perpetuate inequality. Some people aren't smart. Some people aren't tall. Some people aren't athletic. Some people aren't beautiful. It is incumbent on us to build a society that affords everyone security, respect and opportunity, regardless of whether they're smart or tall or athletic or beautiful. Still not convinced? Imagine a society where we just pretended that there was no such thing as physical disability. Paraplegics are just as capable of walking as anyone else if only they get the right training. We shouldn't give paraplegics wheelchairs, we should lend them $150,000 to spend three years at walking school. The blind don't need canes and dogs, they just need extra seeing practice. How barbaric, how inhumane, how very familiar.

vixen99 8y ago
I rather hope you don't teach kids or anyone else, armed as you would likely be with a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development including that of drawing a spurious, simplistic and dangerous parallel between physical disability and mental 'disabilities' as you apply it to the non-clinically-referable population.
- shusson 8y ago
  > a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development I think if you look at the best evidence we have (IQ), it does support the general idea that there are a set of "un-smart" kids. But that depends on the definition of smart. If you're a teacher of a subject in which IQ is a predictor then why not treat individuals differently?
- jdietrich 8y ago
  What would you prefer? That I ignore the overwhelming burden of research on cognitive development? That I pretend that everyone has equal potential for cognitive development, regardless of genetics and environment? That I pretend that we know how to compensate fully for those early disadvantages? No reasonable person would tell a stunted, sickly and uncoordinated teenager that they could make the NFL combine if only they tried hard enough. It would be an act of cruelty to persuade them of that rather than guiding them towards a more realistic ambition. We have to accept the very simple reality that while everyone is born with equal rights and equal value as a human being, not everyone is born with equal potential and there is only so much that we as a society can do to ameliorate those differences. We must encourage everyone to achieve their full potential, but we must also recognise that not everyone has the same potential. We must build a society that is fair, decent and humane in spite of that fact. A great number of non-clinically-referable people have to work extremely hard just to achieve elementary-level literacy and numeracy. Some simply don't have the concentration, memory and cognitive ability required to successfully complete a secondary or post-secondary education. The answer is not to bury our heads in the sand, but to create meaningful opportunities and social support for the millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are currently being shafted by the pointy end of meritocracy. "You can achieve anything you set your mind to" is a hair's breadth away from "if you fail, it's because you didn't try hard enough". That's an unconscionably callous ideology to base an education system or a society upon.
shusson 8y ago
Yeah, but an education system is optimising to what it is measuring, can we be sure that it's measuring the correct metrics?
afpx 8y ago
I received the label of very high IQ-er early on. Yet, I don’t believe that I’m all that smart. I just spend a lot of time in my head thinking about shit. Oh, and I enjoy solving puzzles. On the other hand, many of my friends are average IQ-ers, and a few are even below average IQ-ers. Yet, I consider some of them to be very smart, and in some ways smarter than high IQ-ers, especially in niche areas (comedy, expression, intuition, communication, trained skills). They just don’t spend a lot of time thinking about shit like I do, and they hate puzzles.
- sobani 8y ago
  Those areas you mentioned are all skills, where intelligence helps, but practice is far more important. And if your situation is like mine, then those friends probably spend way more time than you practicing those skills. Instead of analyzing a joke / expression / reaction to death, weighting the subtle differences between synonyms, they probably tried a bunch of times and saw what stuck. Don't confuse intelligence with experience. ps. It took me about an hour to write this comment and it isn't any better for it. I probably could've written a dozen in the same time and become much better at expressing my thoughts instead.

vixen99 8y ago

I rather hope you don't teach kids or anyone else, armed as you would likely be with a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development including that of drawing a spurious, simplistic and dangerous parallel between physical disability and mental 'disabilities' as you apply it to the non-clinically-referable population.

shusson 8y ago
> a set of non-evidential assumptions about their mental development I think if you look at the best evidence we have (IQ), it does support the general idea that there are a set of "un-smart" kids. But that depends on the definition of smart. If you're a teacher of a subject in which IQ is a predictor then why not treat individuals differently?
jdietrich 8y ago
What would you prefer? That I ignore the overwhelming burden of research on cognitive development? That I pretend that everyone has equal potential for cognitive development, regardless of genetics and environment? That I pretend that we know how to compensate fully for those early disadvantages? No reasonable person would tell a stunted, sickly and uncoordinated teenager that they could make the NFL combine if only they tried hard enough. It would be an act of cruelty to persuade them of that rather than guiding them towards a more realistic ambition. We have to accept the very simple reality that while everyone is born with equal rights and equal value as a human being, not everyone is born with equal potential and there is only so much that we as a society can do to ameliorate those differences. We must encourage everyone to achieve their full potential, but we must also recognise that not everyone has the same potential. We must build a society that is fair, decent and humane in spite of that fact. A great number of non-clinically-referable people have to work extremely hard just to achieve elementary-level literacy and numeracy. Some simply don't have the concentration, memory and cognitive ability required to successfully complete a secondary or post-secondary education. The answer is not to bury our heads in the sand, but to create meaningful opportunities and social support for the millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are currently being shafted by the pointy end of meritocracy. "You can achieve anything you set your mind to" is a hair's breadth away from "if you fail, it's because you didn't try hard enough". That's an unconscionably callous ideology to base an education system or a society upon.

shusson 8y ago

Yeah, but an education system is optimising to what it is measuring, can we be sure that it's measuring the correct metrics?

afpx 8y ago

I received the label of very high IQ-er early on. Yet, I don’t believe that I’m all that smart. I just spend a lot of time in my head thinking about shit. Oh, and I enjoy solving puzzles. On the other hand, many of my friends are average IQ-ers, and a few are even below average IQ-ers. Yet, I consider some of them to be very smart, and in some ways smarter than high IQ-ers, especially in niche areas (comedy, expression, intuition, communication, trained skills). They just don’t spend a lot of time thinking about shit like I do, and they hate puzzles.

sobani 8y ago
Those areas you mentioned are all skills, where intelligence helps, but practice is far more important. And if your situation is like mine, then those friends probably spend way more time than you practicing those skills. Instead of analyzing a joke / expression / reaction to death, weighting the subtle differences between synonyms, they probably tried a bunch of times and saw what stuck. Don't confuse intelligence with experience. ps. It took me about an hour to write this comment and it isn't any better for it. I probably could've written a dozen in the same time and become much better at expressing my thoughts instead.