Excellent observations, Val.

I personally have observed this 'upper limit' for peers that simply could not cope with graduate level training in mathematics or the physical sciences. For some of them it was the pace/rate that was limiting-- but for others, it was a cognitive limit of some sort that caused shut-down. They had the foundational skills, and they had the speed, but they didn't have the surge capacity. It was heartbreaking to see this up close, incidentally. They were completely competent with bachelor's level understanding of the subject, but they simply didn't have the raw material to earn advanced degrees in those subjects.

Many of them were better teachers of the lower-level material than the rest of us, however, which I've always found interesting. They certainly had greater persistance than many of the more successful of us. They had a lot of different tools in their mental toolboxes, and seemed to be much more capable at switching from one mode of teaching to another situationally. Those of us that didn't struggle quite so hard with the material seemed to have fewer strategic methods of working/learning, and we'd often give up when we hit a wall that we couldn't work around.


Cheetahs. We're good at what we do, but really AWFUL at being 'generalists' in some ways. The generalists aren't cut out to be good cheetahs, but they sure can outlast us in sheer determination and endurance. wink

I also love how Wren put her daughter's piano experience. That is precisely how we approach tasks/obligations with our DD. She doesn't have to be a 'master' at something to make it worthwhile. She probably does need to get out of at least some activities what she puts into them, and music is an excellent tool for learning what that feels like.

Mostly, results don't seem (to her) to be related to sweat equity, which is not a good thing to learn. I think this relates to what Val is saying about arbitrary boundary conditions. I also think that this is the underlying principles guiding Dr. Chua with her parenting.

Just because broader culture says that {example} is the "normal" and "natural" progression and expectations, why is it mandatory to follow that path? Is it right for everyone? If it isn't, then how does one determine which cases are exceptions? What does "normal" and "natural" look like for those exceptions?



Take, for example, the notion that "everyone should go to college."

Well, everyone?? Really? Maybe not. Okay, so who should be excluded from that statement? Maybe "additional learning experiences beyond compulsory schooling are beneficial to everyone" is a better way of saying that, but that is certainly going to be harder to QUANTIFY and MEASURE.

Frankly, I think we've gone round the bend in our culture (meaning N. America and the US in particular) in our obsession with quantitative data-- to the point that it sometimes seems as though numbers are preferable to anecdote or plurality, even if when those statistical data are known to be meaningless in the context in which they are being used. Does anyone truly think that NCLB statistics mean anything much? In my mind, that is nearly as ludicrous as evaluating how many third graders know how to tie their shoes and take a city bus somewhere and calling that a measure of effective parenting. It's crazy, and everyone knows that it's crazy, but we can't seem to stop.

Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.