7 ms·

The article itself is interesting but it is also interesting in what it does not talk about : - It does not define intelligence. The author acknowledges that o

The article itself is interesting but it is also interesting in what it does not talk about : - It does not define intelligence. The author acknowledges that of course intelligence is not everything but does not define it. I think a better take would be to define intelligence (as the article implicitly does but explicit is better than implicit) as the capacity to manipulate abstractions. Maybe with a better definition and with valorizing other "intelligences", emotional intelligence for one comes to mind, it would be more socially acceptable to say that we have different capabilities to manipulate abstractions. Of course the reason why it is not socially acceptable is because, that capacity is deeply connected to social statuses and being well off or not. - It does not factor in the idea of work. It rejects it with the author's personnal story that tried to be good at something but never got good. The idea behind progressive education systems is to find the best way for people to get good by working on something while respecting their rythms, or for the more ambitous ones, to enen remove psychological/mental barriers by working around them. Of course mental abilities differ wildly but it is a moot point. Don't we want as a society the systems that works best for each according to its abilities ? And this is were I agree with the article, education systems should be layered by level of achivements and not merely by age. Of course that would make parents of "slower" kids worried for their economic status so what we have now is a kind of compromise. - Since it does not talk about what work can achieve, it does not talk about how an economic and social environment can promote or hinder learning. Is your whole family shouting all around the place ? Do you parents oversee your education ? Do you have room/quiet place of your own ? At first I was thrilled to see a non-reactionnary take of how taking into account abilities could make for a better education system but by the end of the article, I was more meh. Too bad.

mcphage 5y ago
> It does not define intelligence. The author acknowledges that of course intelligence is not everything but does not define it. I think a better take would be to define intelligence (as the article implicitly does but explicit is better than implicit) From the article: >> Or, in some tellings, no one knows what smart is, it’s some sort of ineffable quality we can’t pin down, or the very idea of “smart” is a racist Western imperialist hegemonic heteronormative con. So the author clearly rejects the idea that smart can't be defined, but you're absolutely right, they never actually define it. Instead, they sneak around it with stuff like: >> And in fact we are very good indeed at creating instruments that measure whether you can read or write or do algebra. It’s just that their results are socially inconvenient. While I don't doubt the author that there are people out there who think the idea of differing mathematical ability, that certainly isn't a common position, and the author here isn't standing heroically for a correct but unpopular opinion by saying "some people are better at math than others". But... being good at reading or writing or doing algebra, is that really how the author wants to define "smart"? Especially when they also say: >> I’m not naturally talented at math. I don't like it but it's true. And easily quantifiable. If the author considers themselves smart without being talented at math, then who cares if we're good at creating instruments that measure whether you can do algebra? What does being good at algebra mean beyond that? I agree with you, if the author wants to say "duh, of course being smart is a real thing", then at least tell us what they mean by "smart". Is it really nothing more than "good at school", which they seem to conflate it with. Anyway, a more interesting question is, "is there only one kind of smart"? This site is full of people who are really smart in one way, but remarkably dumb in others. (As is every forum). Just like the author is smart, but still bad at math and programming.
mbrodersen 5y ago
The article is making a great point without needing to define those terms. And obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X. That’s kinda obviously true. The point of the article is that most people refuse to acknowledge that some people are better at abstract thinking than others. And not acknowledging this leads to bad decisions when it comes to how we educate people. It is an obvious true fact that most people refuse to acknowledge. So kudos to the author for stating something that should be obviously true to most people but clearly isn’t.
- cassepipe 5y ago
  I am always very wary of obvious. If you say it's obvious, you say it needs not be explained which I already have a problem with. What is obvious, obviously varies across places and cultures. Most statements are oversimplifications of issues for purposes of communication. What gets thrown away in that process is generally quite political. How you say something, how you present information has an effect on the way an information is perceived is what living in a society that has had newspaper, radio, TV and now online information should have taught us. Now you say "obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X". I don't agree with this statement. It is just describing one possible path, an ideal cycle of work and reward, not all possible paths. It is absolutely possible to be good at something but not interested in it for example. Although what about all the people that had no particular talent for a domain but through work learnt to be reasonably good (which I suspect is the common fate) should have we quit because we had no "natural talent" ?
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    You are reading more into my comment that what is there. I said that you are more likely to be successful doing X if you have talent for it and work hard on it. Likely does not imply what you suggest.

mcphage 5y ago

> It does not define intelligence. The author acknowledges that of course intelligence is not everything but does not define it. I think a better take would be to define intelligence (as the article implicitly does but explicit is better than implicit) From the article: >> Or, in some tellings, no one knows what smart is, it’s some sort of ineffable quality we can’t pin down, or the very idea of “smart” is a racist Western imperialist hegemonic heteronormative con. So the author clearly rejects the idea that smart can't be defined, but you're absolutely right, they never actually define it. Instead, they sneak around it with stuff like: >> And in fact we are very good indeed at creating instruments that measure whether you can read or write or do algebra. It’s just that their results are socially inconvenient. While I don't doubt the author that there are people out there who think the idea of differing mathematical ability, that certainly isn't a common position, and the author here isn't standing heroically for a correct but unpopular opinion by saying "some people are better at math than others". But... being good at reading or writing or doing algebra, is that really how the author wants to define "smart"? Especially when they also say: >> I’m not naturally talented at math. I don't like it but it's true. And easily quantifiable. If the author considers themselves smart without being talented at math, then who cares if we're good at creating instruments that measure whether you can do algebra? What does being good at algebra mean beyond that? I agree with you, if the author wants to say "duh, of course being smart is a real thing", then at least tell us what they mean by "smart". Is it really nothing more than "good at school", which they seem to conflate it with. Anyway, a more interesting question is, "is there only one kind of smart"? This site is full of people who are really smart in one way, but remarkably dumb in others. (As is every forum). Just like the author is smart, but still bad at math and programming.

mbrodersen 5y ago

The article is making a great point without needing to define those terms. And obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X. That’s kinda obviously true. The point of the article is that most people refuse to acknowledge that some people are better at abstract thinking than others. And not acknowledging this leads to bad decisions when it comes to how we educate people. It is an obvious true fact that most people refuse to acknowledge. So kudos to the author for stating something that should be obviously true to most people but clearly isn’t.

cassepipe 5y ago
I am always very wary of obvious. If you say it's obvious, you say it needs not be explained which I already have a problem with. What is obvious, obviously varies across places and cultures. Most statements are oversimplifications of issues for purposes of communication. What gets thrown away in that process is generally quite political. How you say something, how you present information has an effect on the way an information is perceived is what living in a society that has had newspaper, radio, TV and now online information should have taught us. Now you say "obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X". I don't agree with this statement. It is just describing one possible path, an ideal cycle of work and reward, not all possible paths. It is absolutely possible to be good at something but not interested in it for example. Although what about all the people that had no particular talent for a domain but through work learnt to be reasonably good (which I suspect is the common fate) should have we quit because we had no "natural talent" ?
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  You are reading more into my comment that what is there. I said that you are more likely to be successful doing X if you have talent for it and work hard on it. Likely does not imply what you suggest.