4 ms·
I'd classify it slightly differently -- in pursuit of equality, we've narrowed or eliminated opportunities for true small successes in childhood. Where true sm
by ethbr0 3y ago
I'd classify it slightly differently -- in pursuit of equality, we've narrowed or eliminated opportunities for true small successes in childhood.
Where true small successes require the potential of real failure.
In the 90s, I remember constantly failing in small ways: organized sports, quizzes and tests, gym class.
It wasn't pleasant, but because the opportunities were smaller, I feel I learned how to live with failure.
And critically, live with it: not ignore/reject it. "I objectively failed at this thing. That sucked. But I'm not going to let it keep me from trying the next thing" sort of stuff.
As a consequence of eliminating those chances, major opportunities are often the only opportunities, and encountering a first failure there is extremely traumatic.
- funnym0nk3y 3y agoHow did we eliminate the opportunity for failure?
- ethbr0 3y agoBy lessening its prevalence. Participation-based awards. Eliminating contest sports in school gym. Non-100 point grading. Fewer tests. Games that are impossible/difficult to lose. I'm not saying historical methods didn't need adjustment. But I am saying that if we're observing bad outcomes downstream, we should look upstream and see if the systems we've put in place are supporting the outcomes we want to see.
- orwin 3y agoI think this is a very good point, and a failure for education and 'para-education'. We got lost along the way.
- zeroCalories 3y agoI don't think this is it. The world is full of competition, despite attempts to sanitize it. Infact, it seems like people are more aware of the competition due to global social media. If we're looking at this from a learned helplessness perspective, I would guess that modern society is an impossibly competitive environment that crushes children more easily, not that they are weaker.