The Trouble with Bright Kids • Hacker News Board

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#131

Post by mixmastamyk » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 6:36 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #80

cletus wrote: post #40

Like others who have posted here, I have s story similar to this. By the sounds of it, I wouldn't call myself as "gifted" as some who have posted here but, relative to the environment I was in, I was "gifted". I grew up in three small towns. For the first 9 years, in a town of less than 1,000 where the 3rd and 4th grades (for example) were in the same class. When I was 8 I was doing the same work as the 7th graders w…

I can distinctly remember at age 10 reasoning out that God didn't exist Your logic was faulty. A God which does not interact with the universe is indistinguishable from a lack of God. (cf. Higgs Boson)

I'd hope we don't have to be held to our convictions as conceived at age ten.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#132

Post by mikeash » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #125

mikeash wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you apply that to other areas? Do you avoid saying that e.g. invisible pink unicorns do not exist? I think it is reasonable to take everyday speech saying "does not exist" as meaning "appears not to exist, and if it does exist this is indistinguishable from not existing".

Do you avoid saying that e.g. invisible pink unicorns do not exist? Come to think if it, I'm pretty sure I've never stated "invisible pink unicorns do not exist". On the other hand, I've never had to avoid saying it either; oddly enough, I've never felt any urge to comment on the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns until now. But this is immaterial to the issue at hand, which is one of logical arguments, no…

He didn't say that it was logically proven, just that he "reason[ed it] out". That's pretty informal and I think does not need any caveats along the line of "it could exist in such a way that is indistinguishable from not existing". After all, if I reason out that there's no such thing as ghosts, that doesn't mean I'm claiming to have a perfect logical proof that shows that they're impossible, just that according to the evidence it doesn't look like they're real.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#133

Post by lutorm » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 7:15 PM UTC

nknight wrote: post #130

lutorm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's my point. You want to reinforce desired behavior, which in this case is effort . If you do something without effort, then what is there to warrant praise? Whether the task would have required effort by some other hypothetical person isn't really relevant to the point. It would be appropriate to praise me for completing a marathon, but not Haile Gebrselassie.

I think the disconnect here is that you're starting from the premise that effort is the only thing that should be praised. To start with, that fails to account for things like moral and ethical choices that don't require significant effort, but should still be praised when the correct choice is made. More seriously, it distorts self-esteem and worldview. Results become unimportant, it is effort alone that matters. A…

Well, moral and ethical choices aren't really the topic of the article, development of skills is, so that seems like a separate subject.

However, it doesn't seem to me that praising someone for not stealing every day is a good idea either. You should not steal because it's wrong, not because you get praised for it.

I don't know how you interpret the Dweck research as implying that results are unimportant. Why would you expend effort trying to accomplish something that is unimportant? Besides, the research shows that results improve when you encourage a growth mindset, regardless of your philosophical feelings about this.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#134

Post by nknight » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 7:32 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #133

nknight wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the disconnect here is that you're starting from the premise that effort is the only thing that should be praised. To start with, that fails to account for things like moral and ethical choices that don't require significant effort, but should still be praised when the correct choice is made. More seriously, it distorts self-esteem and worldview. Results become unimportant, it is effort alone that matters. A…

Well, moral and ethical choices aren't really the topic of the article, development of skills is, so that seems like a separate subject. However, it doesn't seem to me that praising someone for not stealing every day is a good idea either. You should not steal because it's wrong, not because you get praised for it. I don't know how you interpret the Dweck research as implying that results are unimportant. Why would y…

Sorry, I was wrong. The disconnect is that you're not having anything like the conversation I'm having. I'm not interpreting any particular research done by any particular person, I'm speaking with regard to a particular action and child based on real-world personal experience and general informal psychological education.

Comment threads frequently run far away from the specifics of the originally linked article. You're imbuing the conversation with a context that isn't entirely there.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#135

Post by steve-howard » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 7:41 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #117

danking00 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's reasonable to assume he reasoned out the existence of God as taught to him by his Catholic parents because he realized some of the typical actions taken by this God don't jive with his understanding of Physics.

Sure. But that doesn't distinguish between the cases of "there is no God" and "there is a God, but He doesn't behave according to Catholic doctrine".

And you may not agree, but I posit that there's also a difference between "God is all-powerful and thus can overrule the laws of physics when so inclined" and "God can't exist because the laws of physics disprove him."

I'm not too solidly decided on faith myself, but if God created the universe, then you can't use the properties of that universe to disprove Him. It's like proving a theorem, finding it conflicts with some common axiom, and then saying you've disproved the axiom.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#136

Post by qlkzy » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 8:02 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #128

qlkzy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(See my other reply for more on my understanding of innate ability) > As far as I'm aware, ability is generally considered to be something along the lines of practice x innate talent. Right, but it's not a simple multiplication (AFAIK/IMO). The research suggests that ultimately practice dominates. I can't think right now as to how to cast that as an equation, but it has more non-linear terms. As to the IQ chart, I'm…

I didn't mean to propose an exact multiplicative relationship. I merely used it to illustrate how the two claims a) innate talent exists and is important b) practice is also important are not incompatible. As for correlation between IQ and various professions, not to mention wages, there is plenty of statistically significant data on this. See for example [1], which shows excellent correlations between AFQT (the US A…

While I accept that IQ has some statistically significant correlations with interesting things, and is stable within individuals, I don't think there is consensus as to what that actually means. But I might just need to read more. Actually, I always need to read more.

That aside, I think the core disagreement here is that (I think) we have both taken the same data (a lot of stuff surrounding 'hard work' and education is clearly utter rubbish) and taken it in two different directions: you've gone in a more innate-ability, behavioural-genetics direction (I think), while I'm more interested in things like the effect of practice. The nature-vs-nurture debate will probably outlive both of us, and there is evidence for both arguments.

Ultimately, I don't find innate stuff that interesting, because there is nothing I can do about it. I would rather focus on a minor factor that I can change than a major factor that I can't, and the research suggests that practice et al are far more than minor factors. So I focus on those. And until the debate is resolved, I will continue to espouse education policies which reflect that attitude.

Thanks for the references; a couple there that I hadn't seen before, and it's always worth reading stuff that disagrees with you.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#137

Post by danking00 » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #117

danking00 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's reasonable to assume he reasoned out the existence of God as taught to him by his Catholic parents because he realized some of the typical actions taken by this God don't jive with his understanding of Physics.

Sure. But that doesn't distinguish between the cases of "there is no God" and "there is a God, but He doesn't behave according to Catholic doctrine".

I think this exactly the problem with most arguments about God. People rarely state a definition of what constitutes a God. As far as I am personally concerned, a God who is not omniscient and omnipotent is no God at all; it's just a much more powerful being.

People sometimes choose to associate the Universe itself with God in the way Carl Sagan occasionally suggested (whether Mr. Sagan believes this entirely, I do not know) but I think at that point it's a question of naming. I call it Universe, someone else calls it God.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#138

Post by jaetldev » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 8:33 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #40

Like others who have posted here, I have s story similar to this. By the sounds of it, I wouldn't call myself as "gifted" as some who have posted here but, relative to the environment I was in, I was "gifted". I grew up in three small towns. For the first 9 years, in a town of less than 1,000 where the 3rd and 4th grades (for example) were in the same class. When I was 8 I was doing the same work as the 7th graders w…

You mention that you correct your sisters when they tell their children "you're smart"- but what would you do differently if you could get a chance to change things.

I venture that the 'not smart' and 'smart' kids both suffer from social anxiety & lack of motivation issues. Could some of your ideas be the ground for an educational startup?

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#139

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 8:34 PM UTC

qlkzy wrote: post #136

yummyfajitas wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to propose an exact multiplicative relationship. I merely used it to illustrate how the two claims a) innate talent exists and is important b) practice is also important are not incompatible. As for correlation between IQ and various professions, not to mention wages, there is plenty of statistically significant data on this. See for example [1], which shows excellent correlations between AFQT (the US A…

While I accept that IQ has some statistically significant correlations with interesting things, and is stable within individuals, I don't think there is consensus as to what that actually means. But I might just need to read more. Actually, I always need to read more. That aside, I think the core disagreement here is that (I think) we have both taken the same data (a lot of stuff surrounding 'hard work' and education…

I don't find innate stuff that interesting, because there is nothing I can do about it.

This isn't really true. If you lack innate abilities in a field where such abilities are required, isn't it better to find a different field?

I.e., if you are a 5'4", a very obvious action you can take as a result is not to waste time pursuing a career in the NBA or NFL.

Re: The Trouble with Bright Kids

#140

Post by infinite8s » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 8:42 PM UTC

mcobrien wrote: post #47

cletus wrote: post #40

Like others who have posted here, I have s story similar to this. By the sounds of it, I wouldn't call myself as "gifted" as some who have posted here but, relative to the environment I was in, I was "gifted". I grew up in three small towns. For the first 9 years, in a town of less than 1,000 where the 3rd and 4th grades (for example) were in the same class. When I was 8 I was doing the same work as the 7th graders w…

Thanks for sharing this. I have a bright five year-old and, having read articles like this one, my partner and I try praise effort as much as we can. Here's the problem. For nearly all of the tasks she's set in school, she doesn't need to expend much effort at all. We say, "nice work, you must have tried really hard!" and she replies, a little confused at us, "no". It sounds like you found everything too easy as well…

Instead of trying to find a way to praise her schoolwork, you could acknowledge that so far she's been finding it really easy, and instead she could take all the extra time she has to explore difficult problems that she finds really interesting.