'I want teachers and parents to recognize that when you do see unusual talent, instead of demanding that these people have certain test scores, let’s find a way to help nurture them. Because I think humanity needs it. I think these are the lessons we learn from Ramanujan.'
I think you are seeing this in a the glass is half empty kind of way. I am assuming you think that everybody is really good at something special. Better than most people.
I don't think about it that way. My inspiration came from reading the Undercover Economist, where he starts by admitting that there are lots of people who would have written that book much better than him. However nobody has infinite time. They can't do everything. That is the key insight of the concept of comparative advantage. You do what you are best at even if everybody else is better than you at that thing. It doesn't matter because if their comparative advantage is in a different area, they are better off doing that.
So the glass is half full way of reading everybody is talented at something, simply means everybody is better at some things than other things. You might be a poor mathematician and a poor writer. But if you are a better mathematician than writer, then that is probably what you should do.
You raise a good point, and CA is the reason why trading with other nations is a good idea (econ101). I should have made my point clearer. I'm not trying to take the glass is half empty positon. I wanted to point out that such statement places all the burden on the individual without recognizing the system that needs to assist in fostering and discovering talent.
The current public school system is based on the British Colonial model. At the time the British empire spanned the globe there was no robust method of immediate mass communication. So, how was the Empire going to ensure that marching orders were carried out as they were handed down?
Create cogs. Everyone learned the same thing everywhere. And you learned in an environment that stressed the immediacy of execution. The Empire didn't want its citizens thinking about whether or not to follow an order in the middle of a battle. The citizen was needed to simply do as told, now.
As a result there was standardization of curriculum and an expectation of rote learning, not critical analysis and the exercise of judgment.
Contrast that with our current environment.
Products have long lead times. Skype. A massive percent of our GDP is spent on things that we didn't even know we needed or wanted. Many of the things that we rely on everyday are the product of discovery rather than directives.
So, when the person said everyone has a talent, I take that to mean, we can each bring something to the table. Diversity of thought. Diversity of experience. And that, is definitely true.
What is not true, what is arbitrary, is that there is some defined set of talents that have value and a person either masters one or more of these talents or, if they don't, they have no talent. That point of view is ignorant and counterproductive for both individuals and communities.
It is my fault for not being clear. I was making fun of the bumper-sticker, oversimplified statement. I have no quarrel with the idea that everyone has something unique to bring to the table. Also I was upset by the fact that it seemed to put all the burden on the individual, when in reality discovery and fostering of talent is as much a job of the society.
The word used was "everyone". All I have to do is point to a bum on the street and the original statement is false. I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent.
No, this isn't how proof works. All you have to do is find a bum, and definitively prove that he has no talent at anything, even things he has never been exposed to, even things that have fallen out of fashion, even things that have yet to be invented.
Go ahead, get started, I'll wait. If you could please do this with many bums, the world would thank you -- every inevitable failure will make the world a better place.
I'm not sure why it's so important to you to push the notion that some people just simply are not good at anything (and of course you use, as an example, a homeless person -- obviously they must be talentless, yes, otherwise they would be successful like us?).
"Everyone has a talent, it's just a matter of finding it" -- the point you are dismissively hostile towards is a positive one which is essentially irrefutable. It doesn't claim talent is "any good" or that it can easily be exercised. It's suggesting everyone has worth and something to offer. I don't know why you are so opposed to accepting something like that. The hostility here isn't mine.
If you read my second sentence "I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent", you would know that we hold the same position. The point I am making is not that some are talented and some are not (only idiots would believe in fully meritocratic outcomes), but that the burden of seemingly "untalented" people lies with the society as much as it does with the individual, and the original bumper-sticker statement does not acknowledge that complexity and power dynamic. I have no hostility.
I did not refer to whether people are worthy of being in the gene pool, you assumed. What I mean is that everyone who is still in the gene pool is still in it for a reason. Sometimes people have talent, sometimes people don't have talent. One should not feel bad for not having talent, maybe talent is not what got you here. Maybe you have other things to offer, things that could not really be considered a talent.
Really? What's the alternative? Have really smart kids suffer through lessons that are menial to them?
I was lucky enough to be in a school that had lots of programs for gifted kids and let them do their own work or work in small groups among themselves. Those moments were by far the brightest of my compulsory education.
Both my parents will tell you that you only get to live once, so you might as well be the very, very best that you can be at whatever you choose. Which I don’t necessarily agree with, because if everyone lived that way, there would be nothing but a whole bunch of unhappy people in the world. But that’s how they brought us up. They taught me to be competitive. They taught me not to falsely believe I had done well when I hadn’t.
As a parent this is something I struggle with. How much should I push a 7 year old child to be their very best? How important is it really to be your very best? Is it more important to push yourself to be happy while maximizing happiness around you? Yet, I'm not really sure what that means outside of trying to be your best at something you enjoy.
As a parent I am very conscious of actually not pushing the idea that you got to be best. I think that easily causes the opposite. If you are preoccupied with being the best you will never dear try something you are not good at. How can you become good at something if you don't try it out?
But I do try to emphasize that to become good at something you have to practice. I tell my kids when they fail, that that is good, because it means you are learning. If they don't make mistakes it means they aren't pushing themselves enough.
Also my philosophy is that it is better to be average at something which pays well and there is a lot of demand for, than to be a super talent at something you can't make money on and nobody is interested in.
I think that is very important, because I see so many people give up on hard subjects like math and physics because they can do better at easier subjects and they are so preoccupied with high grade averages. I say, screw that and instead be average at something useful.
You should of course try to follow you heart but if study something you really enjoy but never get a job afterwards in a related field, you will reap a lot of misery for years just so you could enjoy a couple of years in college.
I'm not a parent, but for me the scary thing is not how important is it to be your very best. Rather, it is the question - can any (otherwise healthy) child really become an olympian, nobel prize winning scientist, grammy winning musician, or great political leader, if only his or her parents raised them right?
Depending on how you answer, if you don't push your child, you could be ruining his or her chances. That is something I would struggle with as a parent.
I decided that I don't have the energy to force my kids to overachieve at things they don't want. But... If they are interested in anything, I will help them find the best instruction. For one this is foreign languages, the other it's chess and programming. But if they weren't interested, I wouldn't make it my mission to push. It's their life, and achieving "potential" is ultimately on them.
Children naturally absorb an understanding of what things are important in life, and yours will undoubtedly feel that achievement is near the top. From that point, you just want to help them succeed at the things that are important to them. Most of the "push" will come from themselves, but once in a while you will need to encourage them when they're down, give them a reality check when they're complacent, or rev them up when they need to put in a special effort.
I agree with that and I wavered about buying the book because of it. In the end, I decided to read it and was pleasantly surprised. It's a nice book. It helps explain, but perhaps not excuse, his self-promotion.
So well said, can't even comment on the line!