3 ms·
Were they?
by firtoz 2y ago
Were they?
- mseepgood 2y agoLook at the perfectly printed writing, even in italics, and the delicate crosshatching shading.
- latexr 2y agoYou’re judging two wildly different generations of children based on one of them being able to do something the other one wasn’t even thought. Imagine training a chihuahua to do tricks, then looking at an untrained golden retriever, not even try to teach them, and saying “why are chihuahuas so much smarter than golden retrievers?”
- lolinder 2y agoNo one said "smarter", they said "more skilled". A perfectly legitimate answer to that question might be that we stopped teaching them.
- Wytwwww 2y agoWell, presumably outliers exist. I don't think we have a large enough sample to conclude anything. Pretty sure there are plenty of children these days who are significantly more "skilled" (just like back then). Of course modern writing/drawing utensils are on an entirely different level and paper was very expensive back then e.g. an average labourer supposedly only made enough per day to purchase less than 100 sheets, so practising was expensive.
- lolinder 2y agoOh, agreed! I think the premise of the question was wrong, I just also think this answer was based on a misunderstanding of the question.
- latexr 2y ago> No one said "smarter", they said "more skilled". No one said dogs, either, they said schoolchildren. It’s an analogy. Either way, it makes zero difference to the point. You could change my word to “skilled” and it would work the same. Skills are learned and thought, that’s what matters. > A perfectly legitimate answer to that question might be that we stopped teaching them. Which is what I wrote as the first sentence. The second is merely an analogy to exemplify that notion.
- jeltz 2y agoThere are kids today that can draw that well too. The handwriting, probably not, but we do not teach them that level of handwriting.
- saagarjha 2y agoVery nice. Let’s see Paul Allen’s schoolwork.