3 ms·

How are you measuring the proportions and then outcomes for society? I'm also not convinced the gifted children are left behind. Many brilliant contributors to

How are you measuring the proportions and then outcomes for society? I'm also not convinced the gifted children are left behind. Many brilliant contributors to society had a less than ideal education. I agree that publicly funded schools should cater to as wide a range of needs as possible. And at a certain point it becomes the parents' responsibility. If your child is highly gifted you may need to invest your own time and money beyond the basic education provided by the state. Another preferable option is to invest far more money in public education. That is difficult to get widespread support for.

rowanG077 3y ago
> How are you measuring the proportions and then outcomes for society? You know damn well these metrics don't exist today. You yourself do not include any measurements in your logic. But still require it of others. I don't think you are participating in this discussion in good faith at all.
- tchaffee 3y ago
  I didn't know those metrics don't exist. There are seemingly endless studies out there. You are of course free to ask me for supporting sources for any of my claims and I have no problem saying when I do and do not have sources and metrics.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    Oke then, where is the source for your claim that the average non-gifted person contributes equal or more more to society then the average gifted person if the gifted person was as supported as the non-gifted person? Or rather the core of the argument: Why is a single dollar better spend on a non-gifted kid rather then a gifted kid in terms of societal outcomes. Non-gifted meaning in this case someone who get's a lot of support through government intervention like for example no child left behind.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      I don't think I made that claim? But feel free to quote me if you think I did. My claim is that we all depend on each other and that if you dropped a gifted person in the woods and isolated them they wouldn't achieve much useful. They might not even survive. It's this interdependencey that gets ignored when we idolize one of the societal roles too much. People smart at math are important. But so are the people who give them the free time to do that by building highways, serving them food, or making the computer they use. In a market economy those folks are valued less and I'm not here to debate economic systems and the morality of that. Just that if we do not make an initial investment in those folks, the gifted folks won't have as much time to make their contributions to society. So there is actually an important balance to seek when trying to optimize for the greatest benefit to society. Also keep in mind that societies have executed the elite when things get too unbalanced. I already mentioned in another comment that the ideal would be that everyone gets the education investment that challenges them to learn as much as they can. Since we aren't there yet I don't think it's unfair to give an average and basic education and to let parents of gifted children take on some of the educational responsibilities. The state can only do so much. As far as your question about the single dollar spent on the non-gifted kid but not spent on the gifted kid, I'm not aware of that happening. Don't all children in the same area have access to the same public education? As far as metrics or sources, no I don't have any. My argument is mostly persuasive, but I hope based on basic things we can all observe or repeated chapters from human history. However that doesn't exclude me from curiously asking for sources for claims from others. Sources are an opportunity for me to learn more than fits in an HN comment.
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        > As far as your question about the single dollar spent on the non-gifted kid but not spent on the gifted kid, I'm not aware of that happening. Don't all children in the same area have access to the same public education? This is precisely the problem: making it seem like everything is "fair" because all kids get the same lowest-common-denominator/no-child-left-behind education system. Every child deserves to have the opportunity to learn, which is why the special education system (which receives enormous resources, far beyond the proportion of students who receive SPED services) exists. According to your logic, we could just get rid of SPED and say "it's all fine because all children have access to the same public education". But that misses the point, which is that different children need different resources to learn. Some need remedial support, and some need more advanced learning. And as mentioned upthread, since CA got rid of the requirement for GATE education, schools (including those in incredibly well-heeled districts) have gotten rid of advanced learning options for students. The result is that kids with involved parents procure outside resources, while their peers whose parents are not involved/as well-off are robbed of the chance to learn.

rowanG077 3y ago

> How are you measuring the proportions and then outcomes for society? You know damn well these metrics don't exist today. You yourself do not include any measurements in your logic. But still require it of others. I don't think you are participating in this discussion in good faith at all.

tchaffee 3y ago
I didn't know those metrics don't exist. There are seemingly endless studies out there. You are of course free to ask me for supporting sources for any of my claims and I have no problem saying when I do and do not have sources and metrics.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Oke then, where is the source for your claim that the average non-gifted person contributes equal or more more to society then the average gifted person if the gifted person was as supported as the non-gifted person? Or rather the core of the argument: Why is a single dollar better spend on a non-gifted kid rather then a gifted kid in terms of societal outcomes. Non-gifted meaning in this case someone who get's a lot of support through government intervention like for example no child left behind.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    I don't think I made that claim? But feel free to quote me if you think I did. My claim is that we all depend on each other and that if you dropped a gifted person in the woods and isolated them they wouldn't achieve much useful. They might not even survive. It's this interdependencey that gets ignored when we idolize one of the societal roles too much. People smart at math are important. But so are the people who give them the free time to do that by building highways, serving them food, or making the computer they use. In a market economy those folks are valued less and I'm not here to debate economic systems and the morality of that. Just that if we do not make an initial investment in those folks, the gifted folks won't have as much time to make their contributions to society. So there is actually an important balance to seek when trying to optimize for the greatest benefit to society. Also keep in mind that societies have executed the elite when things get too unbalanced. I already mentioned in another comment that the ideal would be that everyone gets the education investment that challenges them to learn as much as they can. Since we aren't there yet I don't think it's unfair to give an average and basic education and to let parents of gifted children take on some of the educational responsibilities. The state can only do so much. As far as your question about the single dollar spent on the non-gifted kid but not spent on the gifted kid, I'm not aware of that happening. Don't all children in the same area have access to the same public education? As far as metrics or sources, no I don't have any. My argument is mostly persuasive, but I hope based on basic things we can all observe or repeated chapters from human history. However that doesn't exclude me from curiously asking for sources for claims from others. Sources are an opportunity for me to learn more than fits in an HN comment.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > As far as your question about the single dollar spent on the non-gifted kid but not spent on the gifted kid, I'm not aware of that happening. Don't all children in the same area have access to the same public education? This is precisely the problem: making it seem like everything is "fair" because all kids get the same lowest-common-denominator/no-child-left-behind education system. Every child deserves to have the opportunity to learn, which is why the special education system (which receives enormous resources, far beyond the proportion of students who receive SPED services) exists. According to your logic, we could just get rid of SPED and say "it's all fine because all children have access to the same public education". But that misses the point, which is that different children need different resources to learn. Some need remedial support, and some need more advanced learning. And as mentioned upthread, since CA got rid of the requirement for GATE education, schools (including those in incredibly well-heeled districts) have gotten rid of advanced learning options for students. The result is that kids with involved parents procure outside resources, while their peers whose parents are not involved/as well-off are robbed of the chance to learn.