3 ms·

I’m confused as to how this argues that precocious kids’ situation today is different from the past. Is the idea that the situations of self-made tycoons past—t

by alwa 2y ago

I’m confused as to how this argues that precocious kids’ situation today is different from the past. Is the idea that the situations of self-made tycoons past—telegraph operator supporting his family by age 16, and so on—were somehow typical of youth in those days? Isn’t the more apt comparison between “pointless” schoolwork today and the “pointless” menial labor that would characterize more typical adolescences in early industrial times? For that matter, between interest groups and national contests and wholesome YouTube role models aand makerspaces and even open-source, where kids can ease their way into meaningful contributions—all against a backdrop of world-historical material security—isn’t it an even larger handful of exceptional kids today with the means to break out and “do” than in the past? Why should we look to the experiences of the exceptional few to understand what works best for kids on average?

simonsarris 2y ago
> I’m confused as to how this argues that precocious kids’ situation today is different from the past. Later I invite the counterfactual: "Imagine if Carnegie and Da Vinci were instead compelled to stay in school for 10 more years. What would have happened?" and, "A 13-year-old Steve Jobs once called Bill Hewlett—whose number was simply listed in the phone book–and received a summer job at Hewlett Packard. This would be unsurprising in Carnegie’s time, was certainly surprising for 1968, and is culturally verboten today."
- chowells 2y ago
  > "Imagine if Carnegie and Da Vinci were instead compelled to stay in school for 10 more years. What would have happened?" Impossible to predict accurately, since so much of opportunity is luck. Maybe they would have made better connections in school. Maybe they would not have. Maybe they would have made the exact same connections. It's possible to make a statistical argument that since they got such ridiculously unlikely opportunities, any deviation from the path they took would have been bad for them. But then you're no longer arguing about the value of education, you're just making observations about a pair of lucky people. And that's not compelling at all, when you don't address the entire outcome distribution for people making the exact same choices.
- nobodyandproud 2y ago
  > This would be unsurprising in Carnegie’s time, was certainly surprising for 1968, and is culturally verboten today. A telephone was only accessible to businesses and the wealthy during Carnegie’s time, so no surprised there. A better analogy would be a postal letter.

by alwa 2y ago

simonsarris 2y ago

> I’m confused as to how this argues that precocious kids’ situation today is different from the past. Later I invite the counterfactual: "Imagine if Carnegie and Da Vinci were instead compelled to stay in school for 10 more years. What would have happened?" and, "A 13-year-old Steve Jobs once called Bill Hewlett—whose number was simply listed in the phone book–and received a summer job at Hewlett Packard. This would be unsurprising in Carnegie’s time, was certainly surprising for 1968, and is culturally verboten today."

chowells 2y ago
> "Imagine if Carnegie and Da Vinci were instead compelled to stay in school for 10 more years. What would have happened?" Impossible to predict accurately, since so much of opportunity is luck. Maybe they would have made better connections in school. Maybe they would not have. Maybe they would have made the exact same connections. It's possible to make a statistical argument that since they got such ridiculously unlikely opportunities, any deviation from the path they took would have been bad for them. But then you're no longer arguing about the value of education, you're just making observations about a pair of lucky people. And that's not compelling at all, when you don't address the entire outcome distribution for people making the exact same choices.
nobodyandproud 2y ago
> This would be unsurprising in Carnegie’s time, was certainly surprising for 1968, and is culturally verboten today. A telephone was only accessible to businesses and the wealthy during Carnegie’s time, so no surprised there. A better analogy would be a postal letter.