[HN Gopher] I grew up gifted, but my life didn't turn out the wa...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       I grew up gifted, but my life didn't turn out the way I expected
       (2019)
        
       Author : ddtaylor
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2022-05-31 12:00 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
        
       | devrimbaris wrote:
       | The author still focusing on "gifted" rather than problem
       | solving. Give kids the means for finding their "purpose".
        
       | f0e4c2f7 wrote:
       | For people who have had experiences similar to what is described
       | in the article - I enjoyed the book Mindset by Carol Dweck.
        
         | Peritract wrote:
         | It's worth bearing in mind that Dweck's theories have faced
         | significant criticism [1] and should be evaluated carefully.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism
        
           | digisign wrote:
           | Sounds like folks taking the idea farther than is warranted
           | and trying to replicate in a lab without success.
           | 
           | "...to claim that your performance in a cognitive task is
           | entirely dictated by how hard you try"
           | 
           | This one in particular is silly. I personally lived the
           | experience she describes in her book and reading it was quite
           | useful. Never took it to mean, "I could be Einstein, if I
           | just tried harder." You can't teach a dog calculus, no matter
           | how hard both of you try. But we can improve through
           | practice, it's pretty simple.
        
             | Peritract wrote:
             | > But we can improve through practice, it's pretty simple.
             | 
             | So simple as to be trivial. As applied to education (it was
             | all the rage a couple of years back), Dweck's work is
             | either unfalsifiable or just truisms.
        
               | digisign wrote:
               | Sounds like you believe "common sense" is common, but it
               | is often not. A lot of "truisms" need better publicity.
               | 
               | A pertinent example. Every single job thread here has
               | dozens of folks complaining that no interviewing company
               | has a lick of interest in training. It causes untold harm
               | to everyone involved. It certainly has negatively
               | affected me. An incredibly-wide industry thinking that
               | folks are unable to learn; it boggles the mind.
        
               | Peritract wrote:
               | The belief that students are capable of learning is
               | universally accepted in education. To the extent that
               | Dweck's ideas are testable and worth publicising, they're
               | already embedded in every school.
               | 
               | Dweck's growth mindset is just another Brain Gym [1] -
               | it's shaky pseudoscience building on top of a couple of
               | inoffensive claims that can't be refuted (and shouldn't
               | be), using them to push unsupported assertions and
               | expensive training on schools.
               | 
               | Industry's lack of focus on training is deplorable, but
               | it's a separate problem. Growth mindset is already the
               | kind of thing that recruiters and internal L&D love - it
               | looks good on a slide, but it involves no practical
               | improvement. Corporate L&D needs fixing, but more
               | pseudoscience isn't the answer.
               | 
               | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Gym_International
        
       | achenatx wrote:
       | My life turned out great and I wouldnt trade being gifted for not
       | being gifted. We do focus our kids on working hard. They get
       | praise for trying hard, incremental improvements, focus, advance
       | preparation, and leadership. We never praise them for being
       | smart.
       | 
       | We talk a lot about what happiness means and how to be truly
       | happy.
        
       | xyzzy123 wrote:
       | Most of the _really_ smart kids (and the ones I knew in high
       | school who ended up the most successful in life terms) did
       | "terribly" in school.
       | 
       | It's hard to initially distinguish future successful dropouts but
       | there were a few things they had in common.
       | 
       | Firstly they usually came from at least "ok" families - they were
       | confident enough in their social supports and knew they had
       | "options" and second chances if they needed them.
       | 
       | Usually it was clear that they _could_ do the work (and had no
       | trouble in later in life learning independently).
       | 
       | But instead of believing what "the system" told them or following
       | its rules, they either ignored or actively explored and exploited
       | the rules and behaviour of the system itself. This looks a lot
       | like skipping class, acting out and not caring...
       | 
       | But now that I look back it looks a lot like learning the "meta"
       | game, which turned out to be much more important in life than
       | what was being taught academically at the time.
        
       | Peritract wrote:
       | "Gifted" is an expectation rather than a diagnosis.
       | 
       | We're not good at objectively measuring potential. We're
       | definitely not good enough to make a lifelong judgement based on
       | a cursory examination. Children grow, and change an awful lot -
       | any such judgement is premature.
       | 
       | Identification of gifted children is unavoidably filtered through
       | cultural/societal/personal bias & baggage. The 'best' case
       | scenario here is that it only entrenches existing inequality, but
       | in practice it both does that and causes a lot of dissatisfaction
       | amongst former 'gifted' children like the author.
        
         | georgeburdell wrote:
         | Your third paragraph does not follow. So what if programs don't
         | elevate all possible gifted children?
         | 
         | And, we do have evidence that we can identify high potential
         | students early. Please look into Duke TIP and similar programs
         | that involve administering the SAT to middle schoolers. High
         | scorers are significantly more likely to earn advanced degrees
         | and create intellectual property such as patents.
        
           | Peritract wrote:
           | It's not that programs don't elevate all possible gifted
           | children. It's that their definition of 'gifted' is not
           | reliable, and it's likely to be conflating 'gifted' with
           | 'advantaged'. Are you _actually_ identifying gifted children,
           | or just well-fed ones with supportive parents who have the
           | same cultural background as you?
           | 
           | Duke's TIP program (and similar) don't limit themselves to
           | just identification of gifted children.
           | 
           | > Duke has a long history of providing opportunities for
           | talented middle and high school students to gain exposure to
           | rigorous academic coursework and to communities of talented
           | peers. Many of these opportunities were facilitated by Duke
           | TIP, which was established in 1980 and provided valuable
           | academic enrichment opportunities for several generations of
           | pre-college students. Duke Youth Programs has also provided a
           | range of engaging summer programs for more than 20 years. [1]
           | 
           | Again, that's not rigorously identifying gifted children so
           | much as it is _asserting_ that some children are gifted and
           | then doing a lot of work to ensure that they get better
           | advantages /opportunities than others. We don't have anything
           | like enough evidence to claim that they are successful in
           | their identification, or that the students would have
           | achieved similarly on their own.
           | 
           | [1] https://tip.duke.edu/
        
             | astrange wrote:
             | I seem to remember qualifying for TIP and then not doing it
             | because my parents thought it'd be too expensive. So it's
             | unclear how aggressive that helping was.
        
           | gorjusborg wrote:
           | > So what if programs don't elevate all possible gifted
           | children?
           | 
           | Well, that depends on who is being excluded and why. If the
           | process is run by human selection, politics are inevitably
           | involved. Assuming there is a positive net outcome for
           | selected students, there is even more pressure to 'lobby' and
           | 'influence' the decision.
           | 
           | Also, if the number of slots is small, but the cutoff isn't
           | in line with percentiles of children in the population, there
           | could potentially be more children on the cusp that _aren 't_
           | selected than those that were selected. This could mean that
           | the assumed net positive effect of 'elevating' the small
           | group is outweighed by a net negative effect of _not_
           | elevating those on the edge, even though they were
           | arbitrarily cut off.
           | 
           | Those are just a few reasons.
        
         | scarmig wrote:
         | The point of labeling kids as "gifted" is to try and give
         | instruction appropriate to the level of intelligence and
         | preparation of different children. Getting rid of this means
         | exacerbating the issues the author presents: being in an 8th
         | grade classroom where teaching algebra has been banned because
         | it's too advanced for the least common denominator is a recipe
         | for even greater lack of challenge. If a student goes through
         | school without being challenged, they're much more likely to
         | run into the issues the author discusses.
         | 
         | It's not that the label is perfect or that we have a perfect
         | way to measure who's "gifted" and who's not, but an
         | intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations
         | is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are
         | appropriate for which children.
        
           | Peritract wrote:
           | That's a praiseworthy intention, but I don't believe it works
           | in practice, and I really don't believe that any current
           | process for selecting 'gifted' children is effective. I'd
           | also draw a stark line between 'gifted' programs and what you
           | describe
           | 
           | > but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher
           | evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which
           | tracks are appropriate for which children.
           | 
           | I'd call the above streaming or setting, and it's definitely
           | valuable/effective. However, it doesn't need to be tethered
           | to any system that focuses on labelling students. 'This is
           | the stream you are currently in' is a very, very different
           | idea to 'this is who you are', particularly for a child.
           | 
           | > being in an 8th grade classroom where teaching algebra has
           | been banned because it's too advanced
           | 
           | This is definitely a problem, but I think it's best solved in
           | other ways, rather than a poorly-supported regressive policy.
           | 
           | Gifted & talented programs often have positive intentions,
           | but every implementation I've ever seen or heard of just
           | reinforces existing systems without actually having a
           | positive impact.
        
         | gowld wrote:
         | In the schools "Gifted" is variously defined as things like "IQ
         | test > 130" or "3 std dev in academic performance above local
         | school peer group".
         | 
         | This is a bit different from "child prodigies" in music,
         | sports, and other skills.
         | 
         | Yes, people expect great success from people who show
         | extraordinary talent.
         | 
         | Yes, nature and nurtue are impossible to fully untangle.
         | 
         | Yes, visible natural talent can be smothered, and hidden
         | natural talent can be uncovered.
        
       | 8bitsrule wrote:
       | Gifted or not, nothing's wrong about being good at academics.
       | That might be one's only gift. But the academy is not what it
       | once was, and there's a lot of highly-motivated people seeking
       | academic professions (which very often - as I learned from
       | talking to professors - involve _a lot_ more than teaching and
       | research).
       | 
       | Outside of full-time opportunities in that ideal environment
       | then, there are lots of yearners. Surprise, surprise, colleges
       | don't worry much about such people. There's another crop moving
       | in behind them, more grants to apply for. The outide world looks
       | right past specialized outsiders. A lucky few become great
       | writers.
        
       | ALittleLight wrote:
       | Our personal mythology can attribute great significance to
       | qualities, like being good at school, and use that significance
       | to explain life outcomes even if that's not a particularly
       | reasonable conclusion. Just like mythology uses simple ideas to
       | explain complex natural phenomenon (e.g. Apollo's chariot pulls
       | the sun across the sky) our personal mythology can use a simple
       | idea to explain more complicated ones (because I was gifted I
       | never tried hard and so I am not X).
       | 
       | Without knowing more about the author's life and what she
       | presumes her alternate life would be, it's hard to really make
       | sense of her position in this article. If she had been challenged
       | more and learned the value of hard work she would be... what?
       | What would be different? From her "About" page we see she has an
       | English degree, is a mother of two, and writes articles like this
       | one. If she had been challenged as a child would she have three
       | kids? Write more articles? STEM degree?
       | 
       | I've watched bits of the Johnny Depp trial and one thing that has
       | stood out to me is how miserable his life seems. On the outside
       | he's a super-famous movie star with tons of money and a beautiful
       | wife - and on the inside... On Lex Fridman's podcast Kevin
       | Systrom said something about becoming a billionaire that was
       | along the lines of life being similarly hard as it was before.
       | 
       | The author of this article seems to have an average life. Most
       | people have average lives. Even people at the margins, your
       | billionaires and movie stars, only have superficially
       | extraordinarily lives that are, at core, fundamentally similar to
       | the average person's life. So, in what sense does this author
       | think her life would have been different had she been challenged
       | more?
       | 
       | Suppose the author couldn't play music well and her parents
       | forced her to confront her weakness and learn to play the piano.
       | My intuition is that she would be in the same place in life but
       | would remember, kind of, how to play a couple songs on the piano.
       | The article strikes me as dodging responsibility - "I was not
       | challenged and therefore am not a hard worker." If you want to
       | work hard, then do that. Challenge yourself. And, if you can't do
       | it now, why do you think you could have done it back then?
        
         | julianlam wrote:
         | That's the exact takeaway I got from the article as well.
         | 
         | "I was told I was gifted as a child, and so now I use it as a
         | crutch to justify being average. Woe are we, the gifted."
        
       | contingencies wrote:
       | Giftedness is a crutch for the recognition of strong performance
       | in educational systems styled from the industrial revolution on a
       | production-line mentality. What is needed is not a continuation
       | of the crutch but an overhaul of the mentality. All students can
       | benefit from more responsive and personalized educational
       | environments, opportunities and support, whether they are
       | struggling, baseline bell-curve, or academically excelling.
       | Technology offers this potential, but we are yet to realise it
       | fully.
       | 
       | Alan Kay often discusses the failed potential for technology with
       | respect to education. He has some great quotes like:
       | 
       |  _By far the best way to invent a healthy future is to invent the
       | children who will invent it._ - Alan Kay
       | 
       |  _Children need to learn how to use the 21st century, or there 's
       | a good chance they will lose the 21st century._ - Alan Kay
       | 
       |  _With a good programming language and interface, one - even
       | children - can create from scratch important simulations of
       | complex non-linear systems that can help one 's thinking about
       | them._ - Alan Kay
       | 
       | ... via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
        
         | gowld wrote:
         | The mentality isn't the problem, the budget is. Assembly-line
         | is a cost saving strategy, not a pedagogical strategy.
         | 
         | Most good ideas in education are ruined upon deployment because
         | they cost more than sociey is willing to spend (on average),
         | except for the few who have wealthy private patrons (parents or
         | "scholarship aid" / "gifted" programs). And most bad-looking
         | ideas are attempts to make the best of the limited budget, or
         | good ideas were ruined by lack of budget. "Individualized
         | instruction" is the current one -- we can't afford good
         | individualized instruction, so everyone hates the bad
         | individualized instruction we get.
         | 
         | Gifted kids especially, have complex talents that don't always
         | fit inside a software program in a 2-D screen.
         | 
         | Technology can be cost effective, but that's not the same as
         | giving best results.
        
           | contingencies wrote:
           | Well that's a cop-out. Homeschooling is an option for many of
           | us. Furthermore, the global market for an individual, first-
           | world teacher, online is currently about $20/hr. There is a
           | vast array of resources available immediately at no charge.
           | It has never been easier to seek external instruction.
           | Gamification of learning has created kids with sophisticated
           | understanding of space, time, networks, etc. free of human
           | teachers. The trend is clear. We can push further.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Discussed at the time:
       | 
       |  _I Grew Up Gifted, but My Life Didn't Turn Out the Way I
       | Expected_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20059589 - May
       | 2019 (408 comments)
        
       | chaostheory wrote:
       | _"They weren't afraid to try new things, whereas my fear of
       | failure - something I didn't have a lot of experience with as a
       | child - held me back from making the attempt. This fear prompted
       | me to stay in what had been my summer job for over a decade past
       | university graduation. I had the education to land a higher-
       | paying, high-prestige job, but I didn't have the drive or the
       | courage that benefitted my former peers."_
       | 
       | This is classic "curse of the gifted". To counteract it, praise
       | your children on hard work and tackling hard, risky problems
       | instead of correct solutions.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-31 23:02 UTC)