Child Genius

[Rhyolith]

........pursuit of these child genius’s and prodigies has done an aweful lot of damage to the education system and people’s lives, while doing very little good in exchange.....

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by "pursuit of"? What is the downside to educating people to their full potential? What alternative do you have in mind other than leaving them bored at the back of the class twiddling their thumbs? What evidence do you have that educating the super-intelligent has had a negative effect on schools?

Theres nothing wrong with educating so long as that is whats happening. The problem with the pursuit if genius’s i aluded to was something of a stab at all the tests and pressure put on people in our current education system. Its simply not productive educationally just to pass endless tests, a skill which is only useful for a handful of occupations in the ‘real world’. Its only use is to tell us who’s “smarter”, which is a fundamentally flawed concept. Its too much of an oversimplification to have much meaning when you really get into it. People are just good at different things.

As for evidence, look up asain schools where this genius obession seems to be most rampant, then stats on ours, then finland where they put far more emphasis on letting people be themselves and envolve at there own pace (including not forcing children to learn to read so early, so they can just be children). In a nutshell what you will notice is the asain schools have the highest sucide rates, ours is very unimpressive and the finnish one is the best in the world.

 

[Bm101]

How do you tell when a leopard is being ironic?

When there's two dozen of them and the answer to the question was 24.
Alright. Fair play. Little tenuous Phil I admit.
:roll:

@ Sam... couple.... possibly.

 

[OscarG]

Ultimately ‘genius’ is a very subjective term, that in reality has very little meaning. Most people labelled as ‘genius’s’ just people who happen to have the right mental toolkit to be very good at something the people around them or mainstream culture happend to value, which really quite arbitrary if you think about it.

In my opinion, pursuit of these child genius’s and prodigies has done an aweful lot of damage to the education system and people’s lives, while doing very little good in exchange... if any. If you look at individual’s who have made truly world changing accomplishments, they are very very rarely one of these ‘genius’s’... there people who have been aloud to be themselves and become the most they can be in their own a unique way.

I agree the word is often overused but if you see early videos of say Lionel Messi (as a 7 year old) practising with a football it's obvious you're seeing something very very special, an impossibly gifted individual that has skills that cannot be matched by coaching/hard work alone. I don't particularly like him but Ronnie O'Sullivan is another, complete natural talent and as a right hander he's annoyingly good playing left handed too. The early videos of him show how advanced he was. Ditto Tiger Woods. Similar stories in music too, guitarists born with gifts that cannot be coached.

 

[Rhyolith]

Ultimately ‘genius’ is a very subjective term, that in reality has very little meaning. Most people labelled as ‘genius’s’ just people who happen to have the right mental toolkit to be very good at something the people around them or mainstream culture happend to value, which really quite arbitrary if you think about it.

In my opinion, pursuit of these child genius’s and prodigies has done an aweful lot of damage to the education system and people’s lives, while doing very little good in exchange... if any. If you look at individual’s who have made truly world changing accomplishments, they are very very rarely one of these ‘genius’s’... there people who have been aloud to be themselves and become the most they can be in their own a unique way.

I agree the word is often overused but if you see early videos of say Lionel Messi (as a 7 year old) practising with a football it's obvious you're seeing something very very special, an impossibly gifted individual that has skills that cannot be matched by coaching/hard work alone. I don't particularly like him but Ronnie O'Sullivan is another, complete natural talent and as a right hander he's annoyingly good playing left handed too. The early videos of him show how advanced he was. Ditto Tiger Woods. Similar stories in music too, guitarists born with gifts that cannot be coached.

I’d call that just happening to have a set of mental and physical traits that just so happen to make someone good at something people value, a lot in these cases. With these examples I don’t think theres anything particularly wrong other than a sense that these people are somehow superior... this being reflected in attitudes but also more measurable things like wages. Somehow this does not seem fair as essnetially its just a rollette wheel of what society values and who you are. Maybe we should only value hardwork? But then some people a naturally more deplined so you still run into the same issue.

So I subsribe to making everyone the most they can be, regardless of what that is (maybe exlude psycopaths :roll: ) rather than always looking for only the most ‘talented, smart, ingenius, etc, all of which are so arbitrary terms when it comes to people.

 

[thetyreman]

I've met a few geniuses who are terrible with people, extremely high IQ, extremely high logic, no common sense, not good at relationships or friendships, so for me they've failed at life because nobody likes them.

 

[MikeG.]

........So I subsribe to making everyone the most they can be, regardless of what that is (maybe exlude psycopaths :roll: ) rather than always looking for only the most ‘talented, smart, ingenius, etc, all of which are so arbitrary terms when it comes to people.

Ah, I see your issue now. You think that educating intelligent people is somehow depriving ordinary people of .......something. I can't think of anywhere where "only the most talented, smart, ingenious etc" are "always" only the ones being "looked for". If you have such an example, I'd be interested to see it. If you haven't, it's a classic false dichotomy.

 

[transatlantic]

I've met a few geniuses who are terrible with people, extremely high IQ, extremely high logic, no common sense, not good at relationships or friendships, so for me they've failed at life because nobody likes them.

So they've failed at life due to something they can't control? ... ouch.

 

[Rhyolith]

........So I subsribe to making everyone the most they can be, regardless of what that is (maybe exlude psycopaths :roll: ) rather than always looking for only the most ‘talented, smart, ingenius, etc, all of which are so arbitrary terms when it comes to people.

Ah, I see your issue now. You think that educating intelligent people is somehow depriving ordinary people of .......something. I can't think of anywhere where "only the most talented, smart, ingenious etc" are "always" only the ones being "looked for". If you have such an example, I'd be interested to see it. If you haven't, it's a classic false dichotomy.

No thats not what I meant; I should not of put that “only” in there.

Some of my points are:
“Intelligent” (and other similar words) is a very arbitrary term with many subjective meanings. Defining is in fact very difficult. Yet so much of educational culture seems to be based around this near undefinable concept that some people are just more “intelligent”, something which in my opinion is outright wrong (both as in incorrect and morally).

Pretty much all “genius’s” and “smart people” can be attributed to just happening to have the mental toolkit be good at something, often just that one thing at the cost of everything else (examples already in this thread). These people are’nt superior, just ‘have all there eggs in one basket’ relative to a lot of others.

My issue with the education system directly is with all the tests in that directly rank people as being better or worse than one another... with very little diversity in whats being measured. Not just is ranking people in most disiplines a fundmentally flawed idea due to the subjective nature of what being ‘good’ at it actauly means, but there is also no accounting for the natural variety in people’s abilities. For example the amount of reward given to people good at writing essays in higher education relative to other skills (you can do pretty well in a degree with just this skill and little else).

I am not trying to take away the achievments of anyone, any productive achieve should be recognised and rewarded. Its this general idea of mental superiority and the current terrible attitude in education it has a hand in influencing i have a problem with.

 

[MikeG.]

.........
Some of my points are:
“Intelligent” (and other similar words) is a very arbitrary term with many subjective meanings. Defining is in fact very difficult. Yet so much of educational culture seems to be based around this near undefinable concept that some people are just more “intelligent”, something which in my opinion is outright wrong (both as in incorrect and morally).

This is just wrong. People patently have varying degrees of intelligence/ academic ability. Is it morally wrong to suggest that some people are taller than others?

Pretty much all “genius’s” and “smart people” can be attributed to just happening to have the mental toolkit be good at something, often just that one thing at the cost of everything else (examples already in this thread). These people are’nt superior, just ‘have all there eggs in one basket’ relative to a lot of others.

Has anyone argued that people with higher intelligence levels are superior? Yet again, you seem to be intent on setting up a case which no-one has made, so that you can then knock it down again.

My issue with the education system directly is with all the tests in that directly rank people as being better or worse than one another... with very little diversity in whats being measured.

I'm having trouble trying to make sense of what you've written. Could have a look at this sentence again, and maybe edit. The education system doesn't rank people, so if your argument is based on that, it fails.

Not just is ranking people in most disiplines a fundmentally flawed idea due to the subjective nature of what being ‘good’ at it actauly means, but there is also no accounting for the natural variety in people’s abilities.

As above, there is no ranking of people. There is nothing subjective about objective tests. Pupils aren't tested against what is "good".....they are just tested.

For example the amount of reward given to people good at writing essays in higher education relative to other skills (you can do pretty well in a degree with just this skill and little else).

So what? The ability to write an essay reveals analytical skills, the ability to research, the ability to communicate clearly, and much more. Essays are actually difficult to do well. Are you suggesting that just because some people don't have the skills to write a good essay, that no-one should be asked to write essays?

I am not trying to take away the achievments of anyone, any productive achieve should be recognised and rewarded. Its this general idea of mental superiority and the current terrible attitude in education it has a hand in influencing i have a problem with.

There is no idea of mental superiority. Again, you keep making unsupported claims, and stating them as fact.

 

[thetyreman]

I've met a few geniuses who are terrible with people, extremely high IQ, extremely high logic, no common sense, not good at relationships or friendships, so for me they've failed at life because nobody likes them.

So they've failed at life due to something they can't control? ... ouch.

in a nutshell yes :lol:

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I've met a few geniuses who are terrible with people, extremely high IQ, extremely high logic, no common sense, not good at relationships or friendships, so for me they've failed at life because nobody likes them.

So they've failed at life due to something they can't control? ... ouch.

in a nutshell yes :lol:

Look, I spent 5 years at Oxford Uni. Lots of socially awkward people, but it would be more than a bit harsh to describe them as failures ! In the right place, and with tolerance, they prosper. The world needs the oddballs. They are the ones that think differently and achieve. IMHO, it is fine for a person's "gift" to be very finely focused, and more than matched by deficiencies elsewhere. There are a lot of people in the world to do the other things ! Moreover, I think we need to accept that the "spectrum" of what is normal for humans is a great deal wider than the touchy-feely therapist types are want to believe.

 

[Rhyolith]

@MikeG

The difference between height and intelligence is that one is objectively very easy to define (the distance from someones head to the feet while standing straight, maybe add a few more rules about posture if you being fussy about it). Intelligence on the other hand is subjective, so it means different things to different people. Maybe give me your definiton of the word intelligence?

Degrees
1st
2nd
3rd
A-levels
A*
A
B
C
D
Those are rankings I think. To me it felt and still feels like people with B are ranked higher than people with C’s etc.

With essays, your right. Its all fine for researchers and other disiplines that need those skills. The issue comes with the lack of alternatives, nearly all uni courses, A-levels (and equivalents) and GCSE’s heavily involve it; and standbye you can do pretty well in all of those with good essay writing skills alone.

Other skills are just so underrepresented, such as public speaking, which is I think is at least equal to value of essay writing and yet counts for next to nothing on uni courses.

Its not that no one should be writing essays, its that only the people good at writing essays should be writing essays. Which I think is probably not that high proportion of the population, certainly not the 40%+ that go to uni (last time i heard a figure).

I think there is an idea of mental superiority in the education system, sometimes subtle and sometimes less so. I have seen it effect many people, mostly negatively from pressure or feeling inadequate, but also arrogance.

I am stating none of this as fact, it should all be taken as my opinion. My writing style is a bit blunt and matter of fact (even though thats not how I mean it) and I apologise for that.

 

[Chris152]

This bloke seems to give a decent account of intelligence and the possibility of genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0qJm6L-MKU
Bit heavy on 'plasticity' toward the end (sounds like he's trying to sell it) but there you go.

edit - and I think this one makes a similar point to Rhyolith's?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaYdtUVL6Co
not sure.

Then there's the Bell Curve...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a- ... 44881.html
:roll:

 

[MikeG.]

@MikeG

The difference between height and intelligence is that one is objectively very easy to define (the distance from someones head to the feet while standing straight, maybe add a few more rules about posture if you being fussy about it). Intelligence on the other hand is subjective, so it means different things to different people. Maybe give me your definiton of the word intelligence?

Degrees
1st
2nd
3rd
A-levels
A*
A
B
C
D
Those are rankings I think. To me it felt and still feels like people with B are ranked higher than people with C’s etc.

With essays, your right. Its all fine for researchers and other disiplines that need those skills. The issue comes with the lack of alternatives, nearly all uni courses, A-levels (and equivalents) and GCSE’s heavily involve it; and standbye you can do pretty well in all of those with good essay writing skills alone.

Other skills are just so underrepresented, such as public speaking, which is I think is at least equal to value of essay writing and yet counts for next to nothing on uni courses.

Its not that no one should be writing essays, its that only the people good at writing essays should be writing essays. Which I think is probably not that high proportion of the population, certainly not the 40%+ that go to uni (last time i heard a figure).

I think there is an idea of mental superiority in the education system, sometimes subtle and sometimes less so. I have seen it effect many people, mostly negatively from pressure or feeling inadequate, but also arrogance.

I am stating none of this as fact, it should all be taken as my opinion. My writing style is a bit blunt and matter of fact (even though thats not how I mean it) and I apologise for that.

I don't think this is a useful conversation. It is just your opinion of an education system that didn't suit you, and it is just shot through with errors and prejudices. The nonsense, for instance, about the amount of essay writing involved with university......I've done two different university degree courses, and neither involved much essay writing. If you do an English, history, or law course, expect to write an essay or two a week. If, like me, you did a science course and an architecture course, don't expect to write many at all. It seems to me that what we are seeing here is "why education didn't work for me" rather than "this is what is wrong with education". Somehow you seem to have overlooked that our universities are ranked amongst the very best in the world, and there is a clamour for places from overseas students. That wouldn't happen if the system was as dire as you try to paint it.

As this conversation is just a rehearsal of personal prejudice it can only end with upset, so I'll leave it there. I'm on this forum to discuss woodwork.

 

[Bm101]

Perhaps if we learnt as a society to recognise the different values and inherent benefits of different forms of intelligence we could begin encouraging the myriad possibilities for growth and development that might entail rather than lock ourselves into simplistic ideas of what serves as intelligence. Is it the ability to count better than average? To care for the old or sick and have empathy? Is it skill of hand? The ability to impart wisdom and knowledge to the young? Maybe if we recognised it's a mix of all these things and many more we could .....
Ahhh .... nevermind.
*sighs

 

[MikeG.]

Perhaps if we learnt as a society to recognise the different values and inherent benefits of different forms of intelligence we could begin encouraging the myriad possibilities for growth and development that might entail rather than lock ourselves into simplistic ideas of what serves as intelligence. Is it the ability to count better than average? To care for the old or sick and have empathy? Is it skill of hand? The ability to impart wisdom and knowledge to the young? Maybe if we recognised it's a mix of all these things and many more we could .....
Ahhh .... nevermind.
*sighs

........or maybe we could have a different word for each of these skills/ characteristics, rather than trying to lump them all in to one.

 

[thetyreman]

Look, I spent 5 years at Oxford Uni. Lots of socially awkward people, but it would be more than a bit harsh to describe them as failures ! In the right place, and with tolerance, they prosper. The world needs the oddballs. They are the ones that think differently and achieve. IMHO, it is fine for a person's "gift" to be very finely focused, and more than matched by deficiencies elsewhere. There are a lot of people in the world to do the other things ! Moreover, I think we need to accept that the "spectrum" of what is normal for humans is a great deal wider than the touchy-feely therapist types are want to believe.

fair enough, but oxford is not really a normal university, it's in the top 10% of the worlds uni's, all the best people go there, for most people it's too intimidating to even apply, let alone get in.

 

[Bm101]

That's the whole point Ben. You need an outlet for the small majority. And I do mean small majority. Because intelligence of this sort is not purely academic. It's in every skill set. Excellent example of Messi made earlier. But you don't hear people moan about football academies as elitist do you? Strange? If you had a child that was cr*p at football, would you expect them to get into the Barcelona youth team on equal rights?
But Oxbridge we seem to still associate with wealth and class. Undoubtedly there are strong associations historically. Would I want it to not exist because of that? Madness.
My lad is 8.
He's bright.
Does maths in head that I have to write down. Reads well. Also good looking.
He's a youngun.
But what if in 10 years he does so well that he qualifies to go to Leeds or Oxford or just to exceed at maybe medical college or as diver, a camera man filming great white sharks for the BBC.
What do I do? Hold him back? Say I never had the brains or the opportunity? Or the balls?
Are you kidding! I'd be screaming at him. Do it lad. Go for it! Take your chances! Don't let your fears hold you back or you can come to work with me and clean windows.
No.
Sod that.

 

[Rhyolith]

@MikeG
I don’t think this conservation is a waste, for example I have been reminded I need to be critical of my own opinion and bias (not that I am taking anything back :wink: ).

 

[Trevanion]

I think the current education system is flawed in that it keeps trying to push students down the academic path of sciences and computing rather than letting the student think for themselves and decide what they want to do. These students might make mediocre scientists or computer engineers but they would excel at something else like woodworking or metal fab but would never know because they never really had the chance to try.

Why do you think there are so many 30-year-olds quitting their IT jobs and picking up woodworking or the like?