If you follow the thread back you can see exactly what I was initially responding to and you were indeed arguing that gifted people are more important to societ

If you follow the thread back you can see exactly what I was initially responding to and you were indeed arguing that gifted people are more important to society than nurses. My claim directly disputed that by pointing out just how dependent that gifted person is on everyone else. Yes you did say that I don't have sources or metrics. However unlike you I didn't call your question unfair or hypocritical. It's always a fair question and one that anyone can ask out of curiosity so they can learn more if there are indeed sources that the commenter previously learned from and can easily share. In fact I demonstrated how one can respond to such a question with honesty and without getting defensive and making accusations of arguing in bad faith, like you did. You should review HN guidelines. Twice now you've responded in a way that is not welcome here. In particular: Be kind. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Based on the kind words of another commenter I can now better see how gifted children could be better served within current budgets. I don't think gifted children are being left behind but they possibly could learn more in an improved system. However that shouldn't be done with the false motivation that was initially claimed: that they are more important to society. Equally important is more accurate and enough. However the ideal that I already mentioned - and that you seemingly missed in your enthusiasm for attacking me and my motivations - is that we should simply invest far more in education so everyone gets the best possible education catered to their needs. Do you disagree with that suggestion I made very early on? Would it solve the problem you are complaining about?