4 ms·

It’s absurd to claim being 6 grades ahead in mathematics doesn’t make your kid better than others in many dimensions. Having the mathematical ability to grok a

by ipnon 2y ago

It’s absurd to claim being 6 grades ahead in mathematics doesn’t make your kid better than others in many dimensions. Having the mathematical ability to grok a cutting edge paper, or not grok it, can make or break an entire career. It’s detrimental to the child’s development to instill the belief that there’s nothing special about their abilities, because it risks them not finding any value in applying them! That has negative effects on all the levels of the individual, the family, the community and even the greater society.

spoonjim 2y ago
In America you can’t say that anyone’s better than anyone else. This even applies to murderers
- scandox 2y ago
  In fairness many people will feel they are better than you because they don't agree with the idea of people being better than each other. While you oppose their view you should approve of them feeling that they are better for some reason as that supports your position.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    It's rather backwards. The liberals will believe these equality principles and whatnot feel that they're better than the deplorables who are not with the program, oblivious to the irony.
ajuc 2y ago
If you say to your gifted kid that they're great because of how well they do with math - then they will likely build their perception of self-worth on their math skills. Which seems fine at first (it's a great motivator as long as you're the best in your class), but later in life it often has very bad consequences if not addressed. It's a recipe for burnout and ego problems.
littlestymaar 2y ago
While self-confidence is a superpower and definitely something we should foster, thinking you're better than the others on the other hands leads to lots of socialization issues down the road, so if you can avoid that to your kids they'll be much better off.
betageek 2y ago
I think that's a bad misreading of the article, and life in general. When the author is saying "better" he's talking about the whole makeup of a person, not just a single advanced skill. Being amazing at maths is extremely useful, but it can be quite a narrow area of expertise, and I would imagine the author wants his child to be a good person, not a hyperfocused maths machine with no social skills. The children's achievements are combination or talent, effort and nurture that other children may not have, it doesn't make other children lesser, and they will have talents of their own.
- nextlevelwizard 2y ago
  Two are not mutually exclusive. Why is it always either or with you people? They can be good at math and still have social skills. All else being equal knowing advance mathematics and having the ability to think through a problem critically and analyze your mistakes is huge benefit and makes you objectively better functional than your peers. Of course just like everything there are trade offs - like the time your kid spends doing math they wont be running track - and that is fine.
  - groby_b 2y ago
    It makes you better at math. That's it. Which means you can function better in environments that rely heavily on advanced math, sure. It does not, however, make you "better" than other people. As for "better functional", many of my classmates from university (math majors) were absolutely brilliant at math, and could barely exist in normal life. And they were cognizant of that - brilliant folks are usually aware that they're brilliant along a specific axis, it's the B tier of almost brilliant folks that needs to harp on about how special they are.
    - nextlevelwizard 2y ago
      >It makes you better at math (...) [w]hich means you can function better in environments that rely heavily on advanced math Except is also makes you better at basic math, which means you don't get fooled as easily with advertisement dark patterns. It also makes you better at problem solving and logic, which are very generalizable skills that can have profound effect on your life regardless of other circumstances. This all enables you to better function in society, making better decisions, and just understanding how the world works.
Youden 2y ago
That's not the claim the author is making. Relevant paragraph: "Does math acceleration make our kids better than other kids? No, also not in the slightest. Our kids are just lucky that they like math and were born into a family that supports their love." The two ways I can read this are: - ("make" = "lead to the conclusion that"): His kids aren't able to handle the accelerated maths because of an innate aptitude that they were born with but because they like it and their family supports them. - ("make" = "ensure that"): His kids may have an advantage but that advantage is no reason to view other kids as lesser or people to look down on, as the advantage is a result of luck and circumstance.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > His kids aren't able to handle the accelerated maths because of an innate aptitude that they were born with but because they like it and their family supports them. That sounds pretty much like the definition of innate aptitude to me. Religious people like to say things along the lines of - jesus helps those who helps themselves. I'm not religious, but basically the same thing applies here. Advantages don't just happen, they are the result of hard work. Obviously that is no excuse to look down on someone else, but people who put in work to give themselves an advantage should be able to be proud of the work they have done. Its not nothing.
  - alpinisme 2y ago
    “Innate” = inborn. You’re not wrong about how talents are fostered but the claim here is that they weren’t just magic, “I was born with it” kind of things.
eitally 2y ago
I think that's an unfair reading of things. As a counter-example, my kids are in the "honors" track at their public schools, have done accelerated math since middle school, and will end high school having done Calc BC as a senior (my son) and a junior (my daughter), as well as AP Stats. To me, that's "good enough" for kids who aren't particularly interested in higher maths. That said, the kids are intelligent and if we pushed they'd surely move faster. But instead we throw the majority of our discretionary time at sports. It's entirely possible both kids will have opportunities to play in college, likely in D1 programs (track & soccer, respectively). This isn't because either probably have the raw genetics of [pick a superstar], but because they have been practicing each one 8-10hr/wk since they got to about 6th grade on top regional teams & clubs. If we throw the amount of time, money and effort we put toward sports (on average, probably $6000/yr for soccer and about $3000/yr for track/XC) toward academics -- or any other extracurricular interest -- surely we'd see above average performance in those things, too. Fwiw, I'm a big proponent of public schools for many reasons, but one of them is that the lower academic stress on top students (at all but the most elite schools) gives them more time to explore well-roundedness through hobbies, sports, jobs and other activities.

by ipnon 2y ago

spoonjim 2y ago

In America you can’t say that anyone’s better than anyone else. This even applies to murderers

scandox 2y ago
In fairness many people will feel they are better than you because they don't agree with the idea of people being better than each other. While you oppose their view you should approve of them feeling that they are better for some reason as that supports your position.
- kazinator 2y ago
  It's rather backwards. The liberals will believe these equality principles and whatnot feel that they're better than the deplorables who are not with the program, oblivious to the irony.

ajuc 2y ago

If you say to your gifted kid that they're great because of how well they do with math - then they will likely build their perception of self-worth on their math skills. Which seems fine at first (it's a great motivator as long as you're the best in your class), but later in life it often has very bad consequences if not addressed. It's a recipe for burnout and ego problems.

littlestymaar 2y ago

While self-confidence is a superpower and definitely something we should foster, thinking you're better than the others on the other hands leads to lots of socialization issues down the road, so if you can avoid that to your kids they'll be much better off.

betageek 2y ago

I think that's a bad misreading of the article, and life in general. When the author is saying "better" he's talking about the whole makeup of a person, not just a single advanced skill. Being amazing at maths is extremely useful, but it can be quite a narrow area of expertise, and I would imagine the author wants his child to be a good person, not a hyperfocused maths machine with no social skills. The children's achievements are combination or talent, effort and nurture that other children may not have, it doesn't make other children lesser, and they will have talents of their own.

nextlevelwizard 2y ago
Two are not mutually exclusive. Why is it always either or with you people? They can be good at math and still have social skills. All else being equal knowing advance mathematics and having the ability to think through a problem critically and analyze your mistakes is huge benefit and makes you objectively better functional than your peers. Of course just like everything there are trade offs - like the time your kid spends doing math they wont be running track - and that is fine.
- groby_b 2y ago
  It makes you better at math. That's it. Which means you can function better in environments that rely heavily on advanced math, sure. It does not, however, make you "better" than other people. As for "better functional", many of my classmates from university (math majors) were absolutely brilliant at math, and could barely exist in normal life. And they were cognizant of that - brilliant folks are usually aware that they're brilliant along a specific axis, it's the B tier of almost brilliant folks that needs to harp on about how special they are.
  - nextlevelwizard 2y ago
    >It makes you better at math (...) [w]hich means you can function better in environments that rely heavily on advanced math Except is also makes you better at basic math, which means you don't get fooled as easily with advertisement dark patterns. It also makes you better at problem solving and logic, which are very generalizable skills that can have profound effect on your life regardless of other circumstances. This all enables you to better function in society, making better decisions, and just understanding how the world works.

Youden 2y ago

That's not the claim the author is making. Relevant paragraph: "Does math acceleration make our kids better than other kids? No, also not in the slightest. Our kids are just lucky that they like math and were born into a family that supports their love." The two ways I can read this are: - ("make" = "lead to the conclusion that"): His kids aren't able to handle the accelerated maths because of an innate aptitude that they were born with but because they like it and their family supports them. - ("make" = "ensure that"): His kids may have an advantage but that advantage is no reason to view other kids as lesser or people to look down on, as the advantage is a result of luck and circumstance.

bawolff 2y ago
> His kids aren't able to handle the accelerated maths because of an innate aptitude that they were born with but because they like it and their family supports them. That sounds pretty much like the definition of innate aptitude to me. Religious people like to say things along the lines of - jesus helps those who helps themselves. I'm not religious, but basically the same thing applies here. Advantages don't just happen, they are the result of hard work. Obviously that is no excuse to look down on someone else, but people who put in work to give themselves an advantage should be able to be proud of the work they have done. Its not nothing.
- alpinisme 2y ago
  “Innate” = inborn. You’re not wrong about how talents are fostered but the claim here is that they weren’t just magic, “I was born with it” kind of things.

eitally 2y ago

I think that's an unfair reading of things. As a counter-example, my kids are in the "honors" track at their public schools, have done accelerated math since middle school, and will end high school having done Calc BC as a senior (my son) and a junior (my daughter), as well as AP Stats. To me, that's "good enough" for kids who aren't particularly interested in higher maths. That said, the kids are intelligent and if we pushed they'd surely move faster. But instead we throw the majority of our discretionary time at sports. It's entirely possible both kids will have opportunities to play in college, likely in D1 programs (track & soccer, respectively). This isn't because either probably have the raw genetics of [pick a superstar], but because they have been practicing each one 8-10hr/wk since they got to about 6th grade on top regional teams & clubs. If we throw the amount of time, money and effort we put toward sports (on average, probably $6000/yr for soccer and about $3000/yr for track/XC) toward academics -- or any other extracurricular interest -- surely we'd see above average performance in those things, too. Fwiw, I'm a big proponent of public schools for many reasons, but one of them is that the lower academic stress on top students (at all but the most elite schools) gives them more time to explore well-roundedness through hobbies, sports, jobs and other activities.