4 ms·

It's related to pride, in my experience tutoring high school and college kids. That was my own experience while growing up as well, there's a sentiment that "na

It's related to pride, in my experience tutoring high school and college kids. That was my own experience while growing up as well, there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things. I feel like kids have been moving away from this mindset, but maybe it's changed names. Growing up being a "nerd" was uncool, and studying was "nerdy". After college, I talked to some of the people who were the "naturally" smart kids and I found out they lied so much about how much time they spent not studying. Everyone lies. Part of it, I learned, was that my graduating class ended up with a lot of cut-throat people, they lied about how much work they put in to gatekeep. I don't speak to a single person from my graduating year now even though I am friends with some teachers as well as kids from other years. A similar concept but less isolated to academics has been kind of a popular "insult". I sometimes hear the concept of "sweaty" being uncool among the youngest ages I teach. Sweaty, as in working so hard towards something that you work up a sweat. It's doesn't have to be a physical activity, you can be called sweaty at video games, or sweaty at math. Education is a weird place to use the word talent, looking back. You can't wake up knowing new information. Everyone has to learn, the people who look talented just learned it earlier than everyone else. I am not sure why hard working is seen as uncool at that age. I wonder if it's different in other parts of the world, I learned that I have a very typical north eastern USA experience.

whatever1 4y ago
The most successful people I know are regular smart folks who have patience, and can get into deep focus mode / zone at-will. The smartest people I know have 0 focus, but they can grasp insanely complex topics that are interesting to them super fast.
- knaik94 4y ago
  You're not strictly describing intelligence, you're also describing symptoms that relate to ADHD. I wonder if there's a bias to categorize someone as more intelligent based on the contrast between someone's ability to focus and their ability to grasp complex ideas quickly. I struggle severly with ADHD and notice it all of the time, in how people's perception of me changes when we end up on a topic I know well and enjoy talking about.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
"there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things." This is a huge problem in the dating market too. "Self improvement" implies that at one point one was a singificantly less high status individual... And that they are at risk of backsliding. People who are naturally gifted or don't have to try have less risk of becoming unattractive later. It's sexier, cooler, and more successful to be good at something without trying. I don't blame your kids.
- cafard 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura
tharkun__ 4y ago
You can't wake up knowing new information. Everyone has to learn, the people who look talented just learned it earlier than everyone else. Of course you are correct that the "naturally smart" people learned it faster. As in, new information was provided to them just once or twice and they instantly grasped it and were able to apply it. As knowledge accumulates in people they may also actually "wake up with new information" nobody taught them. As in their brains may make associations and conclusions without someone teaching them. The proverbial "I had an idea while showering". There's your "talented" guy.
fuzzfactor 4y ago
>there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things. Someone who recognizes this very wisely might be the one most likely to engage both as much as possible.
oneoff786 4y ago
As someone who neither took notes nor studied for basically anything I disagree. I cannot study effectively. I would cram some facts in 30 minutes prior to a test and that’s it. I don’t think I was alone. It had nothing to do with looking uncool. Most stuff is simply taught in class and if you pay attention and remember it you will be fine. Teachers tend not to test stuff they did not teach. I always thought studying was for kids who either did not pay attention or wasted their time taking notes without actually learning. I’ve softened that opinion since but many people absolutely do not need to study much.
- Erem 4y ago
  Wait so after a lecture on the principles of, say, kinematics you would then be able to nail an exam that required you to compute against those principles? I think that's unusual. For me in class even if I could follow the teacher perfectly, only through applying concepts in study (read: solving many problems) could I gain the deeper level of insight and comfort with the material that it took to ace exams.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    I mean yeah. I sat in the front. I listened and took no notes. If you’re being tested on details from a book you need to read the book. Think English tests that really just want to Make sure you actually read. If you’re being tested on the gist of what was taught then you can probably just pay attention in class. Think… biology or history. If you’re being tested on your ability to apply things you just need to be confident in your understanding of the mechanics. If you understand a math formula, and it’s reasoning, there’s not often a need to practice it. Some exceptions apply where the math is just weird hacks and patterns like finding function roots or calculus patterns. Physics is pretty hard for people because it really asks you to be able to apply things to real world thinking. I recall a question that requires you to consider the distance to the moon to get an answer. This distance was not provided. If you understood the formula and the problem, it was apparent that the distance would be so large it would not affect the answer. Hard to study for.
    - 4y ago

whatever1 4y ago

The most successful people I know are regular smart folks who have patience, and can get into deep focus mode / zone at-will. The smartest people I know have 0 focus, but they can grasp insanely complex topics that are interesting to them super fast.

knaik94 4y ago
You're not strictly describing intelligence, you're also describing symptoms that relate to ADHD. I wonder if there's a bias to categorize someone as more intelligent based on the contrast between someone's ability to focus and their ability to grasp complex ideas quickly. I struggle severly with ADHD and notice it all of the time, in how people's perception of me changes when we end up on a topic I know well and enjoy talking about.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

"there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things." This is a huge problem in the dating market too. "Self improvement" implies that at one point one was a singificantly less high status individual... And that they are at risk of backsliding. People who are naturally gifted or don't have to try have less risk of becoming unattractive later. It's sexier, cooler, and more successful to be good at something without trying. I don't blame your kids.

cafard 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura

tharkun__ 4y ago

You can't wake up knowing new information. Everyone has to learn, the people who look talented just learned it earlier than everyone else. Of course you are correct that the "naturally smart" people learned it faster. As in, new information was provided to them just once or twice and they instantly grasped it and were able to apply it. As knowledge accumulates in people they may also actually "wake up with new information" nobody taught them. As in their brains may make associations and conclusions without someone teaching them. The proverbial "I had an idea while showering". There's your "talented" guy.

fuzzfactor 4y ago

>there's a sentiment that "natural" smartness and hard-working smartness are two seperate things. Someone who recognizes this very wisely might be the one most likely to engage both as much as possible.

oneoff786 4y ago

As someone who neither took notes nor studied for basically anything I disagree. I cannot study effectively. I would cram some facts in 30 minutes prior to a test and that’s it. I don’t think I was alone. It had nothing to do with looking uncool. Most stuff is simply taught in class and if you pay attention and remember it you will be fine. Teachers tend not to test stuff they did not teach. I always thought studying was for kids who either did not pay attention or wasted their time taking notes without actually learning. I’ve softened that opinion since but many people absolutely do not need to study much.

Erem 4y ago
Wait so after a lecture on the principles of, say, kinematics you would then be able to nail an exam that required you to compute against those principles? I think that's unusual. For me in class even if I could follow the teacher perfectly, only through applying concepts in study (read: solving many problems) could I gain the deeper level of insight and comfort with the material that it took to ace exams.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I mean yeah. I sat in the front. I listened and took no notes. If you’re being tested on details from a book you need to read the book. Think English tests that really just want to Make sure you actually read. If you’re being tested on the gist of what was taught then you can probably just pay attention in class. Think… biology or history. If you’re being tested on your ability to apply things you just need to be confident in your understanding of the mechanics. If you understand a math formula, and it’s reasoning, there’s not often a need to practice it. Some exceptions apply where the math is just weird hacks and patterns like finding function roots or calculus patterns. Physics is pretty hard for people because it really asks you to be able to apply things to real world thinking. I recall a question that requires you to consider the distance to the moon to get an answer. This distance was not provided. If you understood the formula and the problem, it was apparent that the distance would be so large it would not affect the answer. Hard to study for.
  - 4y ago