4 ms·

People are different; talents exist. But of course its a seed, and must grow to something. My older niece was doing a simple puzzle as a toddler - just 7 or 8

People are different; talents exist. But of course its a seed, and must grow to something. My older niece was doing a simple puzzle as a toddler - just 7 or 8 pieces of wood in a frame. She was struggling, which is normal at that age. Her younger sister on the couch, maybe 1, was watching. After a couple of minutes she sighed, crawled to the edge of the couch, slithered off, crawled over to the puzzle. Picked up each piece and put it in its place, perfectly. Crawled back to the couch, pulled herself up and rolled back onto her blanket. Today she is a top-notch architect. A talented one.

raincom 6y ago
I used to believe in the thesis that "all are almost equal, only nurturing accounts for differences in talents". After reading various cases in the works of the late Dr. Oliver Sacks, nature (parents/genetics) also matters. However, this belief that nature matters can bring in negative consequences for many people who look for ordinary jobs. For instance, not every programming job doesn't need a genius; not every well-paid job doesn't need a genius. Once companies start looking for geniuses in the name of tough interviews for average well-paid jobs, it can create problems for the majority of non-geniuses.
- musingsole 6y ago
  > every well-paid job doesn't need a genius This echoes something I've been thinking a lot on recently. It's not just 'not every well-paid job'. It is quite literally most every well-paid job doesn't need a genius. A step further: most well-paid jobs will be impeded by a genius. Geniuses aren't fun, awesome, let-em-loose-and-profit machines. They're people. Worse, they're necessarily weird people. While we need to cultivate them and give them the resources they need, optimizing society for geniuses would make a society most don't want to live in. Creating narratives where you are a rockstar-whatever or failure only sets us up for failure. The message is be yourself. The message is that if you are a weird, quirky, feeling-left-out genius, that's ok. If you aren't, well, that's just normal.

raincom 6y ago

I used to believe in the thesis that "all are almost equal, only nurturing accounts for differences in talents". After reading various cases in the works of the late Dr. Oliver Sacks, nature (parents/genetics) also matters. However, this belief that nature matters can bring in negative consequences for many people who look for ordinary jobs. For instance, not every programming job doesn't need a genius; not every well-paid job doesn't need a genius. Once companies start looking for geniuses in the name of tough interviews for average well-paid jobs, it can create problems for the majority of non-geniuses.

musingsole 6y ago
> every well-paid job doesn't need a genius This echoes something I've been thinking a lot on recently. It's not just 'not every well-paid job'. It is quite literally most every well-paid job doesn't need a genius. A step further: most well-paid jobs will be impeded by a genius. Geniuses aren't fun, awesome, let-em-loose-and-profit machines. They're people. Worse, they're necessarily weird people. While we need to cultivate them and give them the resources they need, optimizing society for geniuses would make a society most don't want to live in. Creating narratives where you are a rockstar-whatever or failure only sets us up for failure. The message is be yourself. The message is that if you are a weird, quirky, feeling-left-out genius, that's ok. If you aren't, well, that's just normal.