4 ms·

No. Bobby and Annie read thanks to tens of thousands of genes and astronomical numbers of interactions between them. One may have a few more copies of this or t

No. Bobby and Annie read thanks to tens of thousands of genes and astronomical numbers of interactions between them. One may have a few more copies of this or that gene. But there are super duper few actual "you have a gene with X function but they simply don't" cases. Loss of function cases for some non critical genes are the only case you're likely to encounter in typical people. And it's not even clear how much this matters in all but extreme cases (e.g. dominant genetically determined face blindness certainly can happen https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290701380491 https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290701380491) but I'm not sure that it makes sense to take these extremes as a model to understand normal human capacities. We are in general extremely similar in innate abilities, with incredibly low genetic diversity relative to other species. In fact, our similarity may be the driving factor in the incredible levels of social organization that we can achieve relative to other organisms.

b112 4y ago
The smallest human is under 3ft tall. The largest, over 8ft tall. Perfectly fit humans also have a widely varying maximum speed, and endurance. The same is true of every other aspect of human capacity, intellectual abilities included. We are not all equally capable. Fairness comes from knowing this, knowing that each person is somewhat different, and working to enable the best outcomes for all. To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand. Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same? Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?
- mhuffman 4y ago
  >To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand. >Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same? >Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher? It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject. I am all about new pedagogy research, but over the last few thousand years, we know a few things that do tend to work for most people.
  - b112 4y ago
    It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject. What a valid statement, you're missing my point. In the scenario I listed above, the teacher is already re-explaining the lesson again, to that specific student. So if you read my statements in that context, the difference is -- when already repeating the lesson individually, does the teacher say precisely the same thing, word for word, or does the teacher try to explain it in a new way?
    - b112 4y ago
      Too late to edit, I meant 'while a valid statement'

b112 4y ago

The smallest human is under 3ft tall. The largest, over 8ft tall. Perfectly fit humans also have a widely varying maximum speed, and endurance. The same is true of every other aspect of human capacity, intellectual abilities included. We are not all equally capable. Fairness comes from knowing this, knowing that each person is somewhat different, and working to enable the best outcomes for all. To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand. Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same? Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?

mhuffman 4y ago
>To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand. >Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same? >Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher? It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject. I am all about new pedagogy research, but over the last few thousand years, we know a few things that do tend to work for most people.
- b112 4y ago
  It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject. What a valid statement, you're missing my point. In the scenario I listed above, the teacher is already re-explaining the lesson again, to that specific student. So if you read my statements in that context, the difference is -- when already repeating the lesson individually, does the teacher say precisely the same thing, word for word, or does the teacher try to explain it in a new way?
  - b112 4y ago
    Too late to edit, I meant 'while a valid statement'