3 ms·

I look at the clear stand-out stars of the world and it is undeniable that the vast majority of them started working on some aspect of their talent between 4 an

by personZ 12y ago

I look at the clear stand-out stars of the world and it is undeniable that the vast majority of them started working on some aspect of their talent between 4 and 6. The development of a standout isn't generally talked about unless there's a story to be told, so while you will hear the story about the kid who started young, cute pictures as evidence, you won't hear about the ones who didn't (unless it's so late that it, again, becomes worthy of a story). Further, isn't that logic vulnerable to a dangerous survivorship bias? For every Woods or Perlman, how many kids grew to absolutely hate an activity because instead of it being fun or developing, it became the hangup of a parent expecting their child to be an extreme exception? How many simply weren't standouts, so they spent much of their youth forced to do an activity that they ended up being merely average at?

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
For every Woods or Perlman, how many kids grew to absolutely hate an activity because instead of it being fun or developing, it became the hangup of a parent expecting their child to be an extreme exception? How many simply weren't standouts, so they spent much of their youth forced to do an activity that they ended up being merely average at? Except that is exactly not what I am proposing and is the kneejerk reaction to the idea of cultivating talent. I find it extremely frustrating that people immediately turn the discussion into retroactive mirroring based on what bad parents have done to their kids, as though it is the natural outcome of this kind of cultivation. Are we so mentally handicapped that it is impossible to see that while the tactic of forcing a child to do something will inevitably lead to failure, early specialization is a real indicator of future success in a field? Here it is laid out all simple like: 1: Provide a variety of options and environments for children to demonstrate their abilities (physical, mathematical, grammatical etc...) 2: Identify what domains the child is gravitating for work/play 3: Identify where within those domains the child is showing a naturally proclivity 4: Narrowly tailor instruction and opportunity to cultivate proclivity within that domain Very simple. No coercion (outside of the standard required for preschoolers) needed.
- personZ 12y ago
  Ignoring your obnoxious and ill-placed reply, I (and others) responded specifically to what you said, which was that the "debate" in your household was about "you need to be the best at a narrow skill and you do that by working really hard at what you are already naturally good at from as early as possible" This seems tragically naive, and in all likelihood terribly destructive of future success, rather than supporting it.
- Retric 12y ago
  by working really hard at what you are already naturally good at from as early as possible. That's more than just tailored instruction. Also, being the best in your field is practically worthless, my sister is in the top 1,000, probably even top 100 in her field in her mid 20's. So she is well paid and making movies. But, she could easily swap to doing something else.

by personZ 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

For every Woods or Perlman, how many kids grew to absolutely hate an activity because instead of it being fun or developing, it became the hangup of a parent expecting their child to be an extreme exception? How many simply weren't standouts, so they spent much of their youth forced to do an activity that they ended up being merely average at? Except that is exactly not what I am proposing and is the kneejerk reaction to the idea of cultivating talent. I find it extremely frustrating that people immediately turn the discussion into retroactive mirroring based on what bad parents have done to their kids, as though it is the natural outcome of this kind of cultivation. Are we so mentally handicapped that it is impossible to see that while the tactic of forcing a child to do something will inevitably lead to failure, early specialization is a real indicator of future success in a field? Here it is laid out all simple like: 1: Provide a variety of options and environments for children to demonstrate their abilities (physical, mathematical, grammatical etc...) 2: Identify what domains the child is gravitating for work/play 3: Identify where within those domains the child is showing a naturally proclivity 4: Narrowly tailor instruction and opportunity to cultivate proclivity within that domain Very simple. No coercion (outside of the standard required for preschoolers) needed.

personZ 12y ago
Ignoring your obnoxious and ill-placed reply, I (and others) responded specifically to what you said, which was that the "debate" in your household was about "you need to be the best at a narrow skill and you do that by working really hard at what you are already naturally good at from as early as possible" This seems tragically naive, and in all likelihood terribly destructive of future success, rather than supporting it.
Retric 12y ago
by working really hard at what you are already naturally good at from as early as possible. That's more than just tailored instruction. Also, being the best in your field is practically worthless, my sister is in the top 1,000, probably even top 100 in her field in her mid 20's. So she is well paid and making movies. But, she could easily swap to doing something else.