3 ms·

> every class throughout the history of time has had those stupid kids, and always will Maybe they weren't stupid, they just need more time to learn. And curre

• somat 1y ago
  > Maybe they weren't stupid, they just need more time to learn. Isn't that the definition of stupid, someone who needs more time than average to learn. While smart would be someone who needs less time than average to learn.
  • Terr_ 1y ago
    That seems a little reductive to me, since "needs more time" could mean many different things, ex: 1. (Overall rate) From the same starting-point, this child will always require 2x the time/effort to learn than expected. 2. (Overall offset) This child's thresholds for becoming able to learn many skills at the normal rate tends to be 6 months later than expected. 3. (Specific rates) For a particular task this child learned slowly no matter how old they were. 4. (Specific offsets) For a particular task this child learned slowly, but when stopped trying and revisited it X months later they had no problems. Of those, it sounds like you're assuming the harshest, first version. I'm no child developmental psychologist, but I'd wager that versions 2,3,4 are more frequent than most people would assume, since they take more work to distinguish and the universe tends to be messy.