Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
I mean, sure, it sounds nice to think that the bell curve doesn't exist as anything but an artifact created by circumstance alone, but problematically, it seems to persist no matter how one looks at population data, and most of the people that I hear using that kind of rhetoric certainly should know this full well.

I think there are two important points:

* The first is that limits to individual talents exist. The corollary here is that everyone has different limits.

If humans really did have limitless (or nearly so) potential, we should all be able to train ourselves to run as fast as cheetahs or master complex mathematics. But everyone knows this isn't the case. Non-bionic humans can't run as fast as cheetahs* and most people can't become highly proficient at, say, tensor calculus.

It's when you get away from the extremes that people get wound up. Examples include: "all children should be able to work at age-grade level," "we need to encourage most of our young people to go to college," and "all students should take algebra in 8th grade."

All of these ideas are based on arbitrary standards, yet this fact seems to escape their proponents. I would argue, for example, "students should take algebra when they understand the prerequisites for algebra."

* The second point is that you can't know your limits until you push toward them in a way that is appropriate for you. Here is where the "nurture" part of things comes in. Pushing to your limits requires internal drive, help from family, teachers, coaches, circumstances, and so on.

I wonder about the extent to which people conflate these two ideas. It seems to me that our society doesn't like to talk about specifics as regards to limits, which may underlie the "all children are gifted" argument.

Letting different kids go through a math book at different rates is simply acknowledging different individual limits. It isn't saying that the kids in the slower group aren't being given a right to "try," as is argued by proponents of equity-based educational outcomes. In fact, letting them go more slowly will likely increase the probability that they'll learn more than they would have, had they been forced to go through material too quickly. A rate of learning is subject to limits, just as anything else.

Val


* In fact, I think Steve Austin only got to 60 mph, which is not as fast as a cheetah. smile

Last edited by Val; 03/01/11 02:37 PM. Reason: Mistake!