3 ms·

Your effort to whitewash is dishonest. "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" this is the direct quote from the document. How is it okay for a governme

Your effort to whitewash is dishonest. "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" this is the direct quote from the document. How is it okay for a government document to bluntly lie? Natural gifts and talents are not ideas, but facts. How is it okay to reject facts by falsely claim they are just ideas? What if it says we reject the idea of evolution or climate change?

pksebben 5y ago
I would love to see hard evidence that "natural gifts and talents are facts". Environment, circumstance, and chance are more than sufficient to explain differences in performance, and I have yet to see any hard science that proves one way or the other.
- temp8964 5y ago
  "Environment, circumstance, and chance are more than sufficient to explain differences in performance". Wow.
- lupire 5y ago
  My siblings (multiple genders and genetic histories, same parents and schools) had very different levels of success in academics. How does that fit your theory?
  - pksebben 5y ago
    I don't have a theory - I was pointing out our lack of concrete insight into the processes that drive performance. Literally, we do not know how cognition works, so any concept we have regarding its management is based on a set of assumptions and approximations. Going to the same school and having the same parentage does not mean you have the same experience. Heck, you could be twins, raised identically at identical schools and with absolute equity, and you'd have differing experiences (leading to differences in perspective and subsequently differences in thinking). To be clear: I am not saying I know either way, but I also reject any notion based on the assumption that we have a strong grasp on how minds work. As such, it would behoove us to implement strategies that are not subject to strong feedback loops - that might have an amplifying effect on the initial conditions of a human life.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" this is the direct quote from the document. It’s a dishonestly-presented decontextualized excerpt from the middle of a sentence, excluding the thesis of the sentence and references. The full sentence is: All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). They aren’t rejecting the idea that gifts and talents exist, they are denying particular ideas about natural gifts and talents, specifically, that the ideas, silent and expressed, among educators that natural gifts and talents are the critical determinants of individual success in mathematics (this is explored in fairly extensive detail in the paragraphs preceding the bulleted list the excerpt draws a tiny piece out of one bullet point from) and justify exclusionary gating on mathematics education.
- temp8964 5y ago
  The text literally said "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents". You want to twist it to the opposite. There is no context here to make this dramatic turn. Even if the writer does not know how to finish a sentence, you are not authorized to fill the gap from -10000 to 10000. Maybe a government document is not intended for second guessing?

pksebben 5y ago

I would love to see hard evidence that "natural gifts and talents are facts". Environment, circumstance, and chance are more than sufficient to explain differences in performance, and I have yet to see any hard science that proves one way or the other.

temp8964 5y ago
"Environment, circumstance, and chance are more than sufficient to explain differences in performance". Wow.
lupire 5y ago
My siblings (multiple genders and genetic histories, same parents and schools) had very different levels of success in academics. How does that fit your theory?
- pksebben 5y ago
  I don't have a theory - I was pointing out our lack of concrete insight into the processes that drive performance. Literally, we do not know how cognition works, so any concept we have regarding its management is based on a set of assumptions and approximations. Going to the same school and having the same parentage does not mean you have the same experience. Heck, you could be twins, raised identically at identical schools and with absolute equity, and you'd have differing experiences (leading to differences in perspective and subsequently differences in thinking). To be clear: I am not saying I know either way, but I also reject any notion based on the assumption that we have a strong grasp on how minds work. As such, it would behoove us to implement strategies that are not subject to strong feedback loops - that might have an amplifying effect on the initial conditions of a human life.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" this is the direct quote from the document. It’s a dishonestly-presented decontextualized excerpt from the middle of a sentence, excluding the thesis of the sentence and references. The full sentence is: All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). They aren’t rejecting the idea that gifts and talents exist, they are denying particular ideas about natural gifts and talents, specifically, that the ideas, silent and expressed, among educators that natural gifts and talents are the critical determinants of individual success in mathematics (this is explored in fairly extensive detail in the paragraphs preceding the bulleted list the excerpt draws a tiny piece out of one bullet point from) and justify exclusionary gating on mathematics education.

temp8964 5y ago
The text literally said "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents". You want to twist it to the opposite. There is no context here to make this dramatic turn. Even if the writer does not know how to finish a sentence, you are not authorized to fill the gap from -10000 to 10000. Maybe a government document is not intended for second guessing?