Originally Posted by Val
Originally Posted by MotherofToddler
At the end of the day maybe it doesn't matter why some kids are ahead and other are behind at any given point in time because differences are probably more often about environment than ability.

I disagree. Ability plays a huge role in what people can accomplish. Yes, environment is important, too, but it isn't the critical factor that ability is. All the art lessons and encouragement in the world won't turn me into a professional artist. I simply don't have the ability.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it's kind of frustrating when people dismiss the importance of talent as though achievement is an either/or proposition. It's complicated.

Why are any of us here, if not for the cognitive talent our children have?

Sure, at the Ph.D. level talent matters but when we are talking about grade school kids learning grade school level math, I really think most kids are have "talent". When we talk about learning to read, most kids have "talent". Most kids have the talent necessary to learn basic science concepts. Even if a kid needs extra help she still has the ability to learn. Many kids aren't getting the basics and then grow up to be adults who can't help their children learn the basics, and I think part of the problem is people judging small kids as incapable or less capable based on nothing more than the fact that they are starting out behind.

*I don't think that kids are are equal in terms of speed at which they learn if raised in the same environment, I'm saying that 1.) kids aren't raised in the same environments so it's not reasonable to assume the child who is behind is a slower learner and even if they are a slower learning 2.) we shouldn't try to limit kids' potentials based on speed at which they learn. We have long life spans.

Last edited by MotherofToddler; 05/01/13 05:30 PM.