Some people just aren’t capable of learning advanced concepts. It is obvious that this is so but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.
If that were the case then either we wouldn't have such an advanced and we'll educated society today or that previous generations and societies were just as capable with less formal education.
When I hear people like you I always wonder how the human race is supposed to be doomed by a lack of intelligent people, yet somehow throughout history no such constraints are observable.
In the past people had lots of preconceptions of what black people couldn't do, you're doing the same and believing it is socially acceptable. The human brain is amazing, just because someone's brain scores worse than another in some motivation and culture test doesn't mean they are incapable of absurdly broad and vague things like "advanced concepts".
Can a severely intellectually disabled person learn calculus? It’s clear that not everyone has the same cognitive capabilities or potential. This is obvious. Your response is what I alluded to with my remark comparing talking about this topic to burning a Koran in Mecca. People get too emotional and throw out reason and logic.
> Some people just aren’t capable of learning advanced concepts.
...with current educational methods, that basically expect all students to "teach themselves on their own". Modern-day educators aren't even trying to meaningfully engage students who respond well to more direct forms of instruction, because that would involve actual, verifiable effort and "demean" their role.
I disagree. I think anyone can learn anything, though it may take an unreasonable amount of time and effort for some. Learning a new concept can be complicated, especially for things introduced in high school and university. All those concepts rely on others, so those lemmas have to be learned first. I do believe some people are generally quicker learners than others. But it's a continuous scale, not a yes/no thing. And interest in the subject plays a big role.
For a metaphor of education, I'd say people are like Turing machines. (A) If there is one person who can learn a concept, then any of them can; (B) some are faster than others; and, (C) the "optimal in practice" state is usually limited by need and not capability (i.e., using modern laptops too just check emails and browse the web).
>but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.
I'm not a fan of preemptive impersonations of Copernicus. I'd rather read what people said and judge that.
> I disagree. I think anyone can learn anything, though it may take an unreasonable amount of time and effort for some. Learning a new concept can be complicated, especially for things introduced in high school and university. All those concepts rely on others, so those lemmas have to be learned first. I do believe some people are generally quicker learners than others.
Anyone can learn anything. But to what depth and degree within the time they have on Earth? What can they accomplish with their present knowhow or lack there of? These questions have measurable outputs. It's not enough to rely on potential. At some point, one should know his bearings and limitations.
> But it's a continuous scale, not a yes/no thing. And interest in the subject plays a big role.
Ability itself may follow a continuum, however sufficiency is digital.
Can an intellectually disabled person learn calculus? Some people are so intellectually disabled they can’t even learn to use a bathroom properly. It is clear that not everyone can learn any topic.
"Other people have it better than me, I want that too, if I accept innate differences being the cause then it means I'll never get there which is unbearable. If all humans are born the same then I can declare the others malicious oppressors - which is a powerful moral weapon - and work from there. At least I'll have a chance to get some of what the others have".
In the U.S. a lot of emotions surrounding this topic come from racist policies/perceptions of the past. It’s hard to have an open conversation about this topic without someone resorting to name calling.
imtringued|3 years ago
When I hear people like you I always wonder how the human race is supposed to be doomed by a lack of intelligent people, yet somehow throughout history no such constraints are observable.
In the past people had lots of preconceptions of what black people couldn't do, you're doing the same and believing it is socially acceptable. The human brain is amazing, just because someone's brain scores worse than another in some motivation and culture test doesn't mean they are incapable of absurdly broad and vague things like "advanced concepts".
czstar|3 years ago
zozbot234|3 years ago
...with current educational methods, that basically expect all students to "teach themselves on their own". Modern-day educators aren't even trying to meaningfully engage students who respond well to more direct forms of instruction, because that would involve actual, verifiable effort and "demean" their role.
vharuck|3 years ago
For a metaphor of education, I'd say people are like Turing machines. (A) If there is one person who can learn a concept, then any of them can; (B) some are faster than others; and, (C) the "optimal in practice" state is usually limited by need and not capability (i.e., using modern laptops too just check emails and browse the web).
>but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.
I'm not a fan of preemptive impersonations of Copernicus. I'd rather read what people said and judge that.
Dracophoenix|3 years ago
Anyone can learn anything. But to what depth and degree within the time they have on Earth? What can they accomplish with their present knowhow or lack there of? These questions have measurable outputs. It's not enough to rely on potential. At some point, one should know his bearings and limitations.
> But it's a continuous scale, not a yes/no thing. And interest in the subject plays a big role.
Ability itself may follow a continuum, however sufficiency is digital.
czstar|3 years ago
gedy|3 years ago
raarts|3 years ago
czstar|3 years ago