Comments by "LS O\x27Brien" (@lsobrien) on "How the Nature/Nurture Debate is Changing" video.

@torinmccabe I think you watched a different video than I did. But when an ideology provides so much of your perception, I suppose there is little reason to listen to what others are in fact saying.
8
@shawnruby7011 The idea that you think appealing to the "authority" of the lobster man here would work is kinda funny.
3
@arletottens6349 But children don't have above their heads a downward arrow saying, "genius-in-waiting" or "not worth the time". You seem to think reality is a lot more neat and deterministic than it in fact is. For example, where do late bloomers like Einstein, or great artists who aren't given the time of day in life, fit into your schema? Isn't it better to give everyone a tailored opportunity; and stop clinging to fairy tales where the princess of the land - or the successful capitalist - is decided before (or just a little after) birth?
2
@arletottens6349 That's... that's just not how the history of society has worked. If you want to worship "Great Men", try to do it on your own time, without supporting social policy that will be to the needless detriment of others.
1
@arletottens6349 You said, "But education for the not-so-smart kids should not take priority over the education for the genius kids." Suggesting that there is a clear division between the two groups (suddenly not so individualistic?), and that society's resources should be expended on the latter, "geniuses". You haven't seemed to stop once to ask "how is that determined?" There's many sorts of intelligences - from artistic to physics-based, hence the mention of Einstein - and one could very convincingly argue that intelligence should not be the priority in cultivating the next generation. There's other traits - empathy, wisdom, attitude to failure, respect for others and the environment - that should perhaps take precedence. Your whole thinking seems stuck in some Pinkerish teleology. And then you doubled down, arguing "one brilliant person can come up with ideas that 1000 mediocre people can't". This is just naturalising the contingent and social. And why must I quote back to you what you wrote, just a few centimeters above?
1
@arletottens6349 No one here has said the "geniuses" shouldn't receive a "good education" - it wasn't even implied. And, my case at least, I've yet to be convinced "standardized tests" are a completely objective discoverer of such (ill defined) things. You also seem unaware that others can take what you say, and express it with different words. When you said these geniuses should be prioritized in education efforts, and "supported" because of the social benefits they will provide, I merely put that as "society's resources should be expended on the latter". Not quite a genius yourself, huh?
1
@arletottens6349 This is pretty tedious. It is quite possible that you don't even know what you believe. What did you mean when you responded to "I want everyone getting as much education as possible, including not-so-smart poor kids," with "But education for the not-so-smart kids should not take priority over the education for the genius kids." That 1) everyone should get exactly the same amount of education, which makes your argument for geniuses getting support redundant, if everyone is receiving the same amount of support from society, or 2) geniuses should be prioritized, given the social benefits. (What kind of genius? Those kids who do well on universal standardized test of course! There's only one type of everything!)
1