>Being critical regardless of age is very valuable. There's this thing that if a young person does something pretty damn cool, they're made to believe it's extraordanirily good, rivalling even the best in the industry. I think it's called the "Gifted Kid Problem" in certain circles.
I think you nailed something that I was wondering while browsing this thread. What difference does it make if a person practiced 5-10 years a craft resulting to winning an award if that person started when he was 10 vs. 25? The headline would not only be radically different if it was a 30-year old who did it because he studied since he was 20-25; We might not even have a headline. It would have been "oh, someone won the award. Yay?"
Do we reward the output as as standalone (as is) during the contest, or do we also reward our perceived potential (imagine what this person would do in 20 years)?
this is another reason why as a gifted kid who became lazy and average I feel like every effort I make now at 25 to improve myself is honestly just too late. In 5 years I will be irrelevant.
strength and self-worth as a gifted child cannot come from utter mastery of a single field. The incentives and behaviors learned do not produce the patience and long hours required to push through to top most fields. However self-worth can come from the ability to master many skills quickly. I suggest learning something new with an open mind and no expectation you will become great, just try to get to the point where its fun to play around with. I taught myself 3d modelling this year to a reasonably good degree and its been amazing. Last year I learned good typesetting and graphic design. Having a broad spectrum understanding is not only personally gratifying but has been great for my career when someone asks me to do a simple task (make some slides showing the data) and I come back with professional grade work
I think you nailed something that I was wondering while browsing this thread. What difference does it make if a person practiced 5-10 years a craft resulting to winning an award if that person started when he was 10 vs. 25? The headline would not only be radically different if it was a 30-year old who did it because he studied since he was 20-25; We might not even have a headline. It would have been "oh, someone won the award. Yay?"
Do we reward the output as as standalone (as is) during the contest, or do we also reward our perceived potential (imagine what this person would do in 20 years)?