6 ms·

How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to l

How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.

Retric 7y ago
“Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.
mgkimsal 7y ago
you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.
mirrorlake 7y ago
Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
  - XMPPwocky 7y ago
    What is "the best school" here? It must be "the school that will best develop their particular talents", right? Presumably you want them to go to that school so they can produce the best music possible with their abilities, for the benefit of society. The other option I see is that you might want them to go to that school because they have "earned it", but this is silly, especially considering a case where they haven't done anything, and are just naturally talented! You now have two problems- first, one school might be excellent at training good musicians but not so great at training savants. Second... Suppose you have one spot in a magical "savant school", which is able to develop somebody's skills better than anywhere else in the world. You'd want to assign the student who would benefit most to this spot- the one who has greatest potential. This is NOT the student who currently writes the best music- this is the one who will write the best music after attending the school. You don't care about ability now- you care about ability later. Predicting the latter from the former alone has an obvious flaw- training and practice improve ability. Because of this, it's a good idea to consider measures of how much training somebody has had, in addition to their current ability, for admissions decisions. Unfortunately, quantifying that is hard- so other metrics are used as proxies. In considering admission to an Olympic swimmer training program, for example, perhaps one might consider how early somebody learned to swim, or how often they visited a swimming pool. No?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
intended 7y ago
And how would such a test not work out well for you? You would still score well, and the fact that you have extra work will still hold in good stead. Let me turn this question that puts your self interest first. You’ve got two people who you can hire for your team. I turns out one guy got a lower sat score than the other. The lower scorer is someone from the projects where people don’t go to college. He still managed it, and crunched his way through everything to get to community college. The other chap has good parents who are highly educated and comes from a stable household. Without a doubt, the first individual has proven a tenacity required to overcome a world of adversity. Frankly - this is a handicap we already give people if we are made aware of their context. The same reason people respect first responders, or people who’ve made it out of poverty are respected. Because it IS harder, and far more fail to get out in the current environment, than those who do. This will end up being more of a “how effective were you with the opportunities you had.” Measure than any other - and that’s provided it takes off in the first place.
- kissickas 7y ago
  Have we forgotten the purpose of universities? Groups of students once gathered in a place to attract groups of professors who can teach them thing, and those professors attracted more students, and eventually they got together and built buildings for teaching and housing for students, formed unions, and all the rest. Why should we be shoving people who aren't capable of being the very best students into this environment? Why give them the expectation that this is what they must do to be successful? What must everyone learn from a university (including those in the Ivy League and their peers) that we expect them to all need to go, as a fundamental right, regardless of the fact that they will be displacing students who are quantifiably better-fit for this place? Who will be the first responders if we make everyone get a four-year degree before they can start their lives?

Retric 7y ago

“Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control.” > How? The capacity for intelligence is outside of your control for example genetic disorders are not chosen by the individual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Further, when it comes to intelligence and Nature vs Nurture it’s really both. People 15,000 years ago people had nearly identical genetics, but their society lacked the knowledge to pass a SAT level math test. Now, making the best of your social and genetic background is up to everyone. But, assuming everything is balanced is at best willful ignorance.

mgkimsal 7y ago

you didn't choose your capacity for learning. there are people that try - much harder than you'll ever be capable of knowing - who can't do as much as you can. and it's not because of any factors they chose.

mirrorlake 7y ago

Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.

sokoloff 7y ago
When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  What is "the best school" here? It must be "the school that will best develop their particular talents", right? Presumably you want them to go to that school so they can produce the best music possible with their abilities, for the benefit of society. The other option I see is that you might want them to go to that school because they have "earned it", but this is silly, especially considering a case where they haven't done anything, and are just naturally talented! You now have two problems- first, one school might be excellent at training good musicians but not so great at training savants. Second... Suppose you have one spot in a magical "savant school", which is able to develop somebody's skills better than anywhere else in the world. You'd want to assign the student who would benefit most to this spot- the one who has greatest potential. This is NOT the student who currently writes the best music- this is the one who will write the best music after attending the school. You don't care about ability now- you care about ability later. Predicting the latter from the former alone has an obvious flaw- training and practice improve ability. Because of this, it's a good idea to consider measures of how much training somebody has had, in addition to their current ability, for admissions decisions. Unfortunately, quantifying that is hard- so other metrics are used as proxies. In considering admission to an Olympic swimmer training program, for example, perhaps one might consider how early somebody learned to swim, or how often they visited a swimming pool. No?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

intended 7y ago

And how would such a test not work out well for you? You would still score well, and the fact that you have extra work will still hold in good stead. Let me turn this question that puts your self interest first. You’ve got two people who you can hire for your team. I turns out one guy got a lower sat score than the other. The lower scorer is someone from the projects where people don’t go to college. He still managed it, and crunched his way through everything to get to community college. The other chap has good parents who are highly educated and comes from a stable household. Without a doubt, the first individual has proven a tenacity required to overcome a world of adversity. Frankly - this is a handicap we already give people if we are made aware of their context. The same reason people respect first responders, or people who’ve made it out of poverty are respected. Because it IS harder, and far more fail to get out in the current environment, than those who do. This will end up being more of a “how effective were you with the opportunities you had.” Measure than any other - and that’s provided it takes off in the first place.

kissickas 7y ago
Have we forgotten the purpose of universities? Groups of students once gathered in a place to attract groups of professors who can teach them thing, and those professors attracted more students, and eventually they got together and built buildings for teaching and housing for students, formed unions, and all the rest. Why should we be shoving people who aren't capable of being the very best students into this environment? Why give them the expectation that this is what they must do to be successful? What must everyone learn from a university (including those in the Ivy League and their peers) that we expect them to all need to go, as a fundamental right, regardless of the fact that they will be displacing students who are quantifiably better-fit for this place? Who will be the first responders if we make everyone get a four-year degree before they can start their lives?