If those people have worse habits, are less motivated, less educated, less cultured, what is there to gain from it?
Seems like there's only something to lose from adjusting to their shittiness. Like Harrison Bergeron
And seeing the state of California trying to push math classes later because of "equity", seeing public schools dissolving gifted programs, it makes me think that privatization is the only way forward instead of trying to make amends with the current progressive stupidity
This is prejudice in the most basic sense: you literally don't know any of these things about the people you're surrounded by in a society. The person who rides the bus next to you could be a couch potato, or a talented artist, or something entirely different that simply isn't legible to you.
I don't know anything about California's math classes. I'm saying that, on a basic level, anybody who thinks this way about people they don't know is demonstrating the exact traits they're smugly claiming to be above.
Reading your comment, it seems to focus on the individual. “The person” you know nothing about.
The parent comment seems to be Bayesian, the probability of “the person” being something.
I do think it’s possible to simultaneously believe that:
* every single person you meet in every possible circumstance might be an exceptional human
* your are more likely to encounter exceptional humans in specific circumstances and you can optimize for that
I believe this holds true regardless of your definition of exceptional.
A (maybe) obvious example: if you believe exceptional humans want to grow their own food and live on communes, you probably don’t want to live in the financial district of Manhattan. That would be a bad way to optimize for finding people who share your values.
Similarly you’re unlikely to find a thriving software developer community in Springfield Illinois. If you go to Springfield and assume everyone you meet can’t program, you’re going to be wrong - there are good programmers there. But if you want to live around people who know how to code, you don’t move to Springfield Illinois.
And if you want to find the best mathematician you stay in academic circles. But the best mathematician of your era might be in a random district in India. So you shouldn't immediately exclude everywhere else, or your 'optimisation' may be a relatively low local maximum.
Society needs and has exceptional people living in communes, in the financial district, in software development communities, and yes even in Springfield, Illinois.
Sharing your values or not does generally not correlate with exceptional.
If you are just looking for someone in your field to learn a trade from, well, great, but that is hardly the intent of primary education.
I think that this is the core problem - you can't.
You try your thesis. I’ll try mine.
We will see where the other’s grand kids end up.
learning how to be patient and tolerant regarding situations / people / things i do not like or think of as “beneath me”.
tends to lead to better decision making as one can respond, rather than knee jerk react to everything.
edit — also, i tend to find i can learn a lot more useful lessons from beginners.
in the beginners mind there are a lot of possibilities. in the expert’s mind (especially self proclaimed ones) there are few possibilities.
children are a great example of this.
It's not all about you.
with respect to what metric? economic growth? that's probably not true, lone wolfism is what drives people to develop expertise in the first place
if the metric is community or "sustainability" or something else, is pursuing that metric in the place of economic growth sustainable long term?
The appearance of humility^[0]? I don't really see what there is to gain either.
[0]: Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Section II, Paragraph 9
The average kid at the average school is at the 50th percentile. Moreover, the speed of the class isn't even the speed of the average kid because then the 40th and 20th percentile kids would get left behind. To get out of this you'd need a school with a gifted program and enough 90th percentile kids to fill it, and many of them don't have one.
sport?
english lit?
maths?
music?
socialising?
being the mother hen?
being a jock?
teaching everyone else things in the library?
class clown?
being the wacky one?
skateboarding?
acting?
rebelling?
looking after someone who has just been picked on by all the other kids?
schools introduce us to a wide range of children who are representative of the people we’re going to have to deal with later on in life.
not saying there aren’t alternatives.
but specialising for only the 90th percentile of one thing seems like a way to isolate someone later in life because they may not have learned how to deal with people who aren’t in the 90th percentile of that one thing.
and i say that as someone who hated my time at school and has struggled with the repercussions in later life.
i still learned a lot near the classroom tho.
It could be the 90th percentile of science and the 60th percentile of literature and the 40th percentile of music. But if they throw you in with the 50th percentile kids in all cases then you're being held back in science and literature and you're holding back the other kids in music.
> schools introduce us to a wide range of children who are representative of the people we’re going to have to deal with later on in life.
This is why home school families come together so their kids can socialize with one another.
And just because I was good at math and writing didn't mean that I "deserved" to be in some separate system where I got the "best" of everything (with diminishing returns). When I eventually encountered people who were afforded just such a deal ("elite" private school in a wealthy area), they were far less impressive than the top college-level facilities they enjoyed as grade schoolers; it seemed like a waste of money that could have been put to more efficient use, as far as society writ large might be concerned.
> When I eventually encountered people who were afforded just such a deal ("elite" private school in a wealthy area), they were far less impressive than the top college-level facilities they enjoyed as grade schoolers
This is exactly the argument in favor of home schooling. If you just throw money at it but pay little attention to it then you get a beautiful campus with expensive landscaping and not necessarily the highest quality education, because it's easier for parents to judge the quality of the facilities than the quality of the instruction. Whereas if you actually care and you want something done right you have to do it yourself.
Many homes also lack numerous gifted children and specialist programs.
What if there isn't one within a reasonable distance, or your locality doesn't have school choice?
> Many homes also lack numerous gifted children and specialist programs.
The issue is that you need the absence of children who would hold back the class, not necessarily that you need the presence of other gifted children except insofar as you need to fill out the class, which is not an issue when the class size is one.
Distributions aren't all normal, for one. And skill levels are often quantized in a way that majority of people will be above a 50% level on it.
Humility.
People who build their ethics on virtues might believe that, for example, being brave is a virtue. And so, regardless of the consequences, they will aspire to be brave. Similarly, people who believe in virtues will see humility as worth pursuing regardless of whether it makes one better off, long term or short term. It's just good to be humble. End of story.
The reasoning behind non-virtue ethics is usually complicated and subject to debate. It also usually shows that rules derived through such reasoning could contradict the desirable outcomes (that we intuitively find desirable). One of the particularly dangerous and undesirable such outcomes is the belief in moral relativism that opens a door to justifying a lot of actions we'd intuitively find repugnant.
Virtue ethics avoids moral relativism simply by not trying to base ethics in experimentation. Which is why some philosophers find it an appealing approach.
> It's just good to be humble. End of story.
to be axiomatic declarations. My issue with these kind of axioms is they're not really necessary. You can get everything useful by only considering things that are good for somebody. Now, we don't live in a perfectly informed and rational society, so it can be good (for society) to indoctrinate everyone with this axiom. But, as with all axioms, not everyone will believe in them. So, if I'm told,
"You need to be more humble, it's a virtue,"
that's begging the question! I need some external reason to either adopt the axiom or humility. Society as a whole seems to have adopted this axiom, but why is that? There was probably an evolution of axioms, where ones that didn't work got rejected, while ones that mostly worked got inculcated. I think most people overestimate their abilities, which would lead to fighting over positional goods. I think the role of the humility axiom is to prevent such fighting, but it comes with drawbacks.
Since the Enlightenment, most wealth has been created by thinking really hard. This means you really want to rank people near the top accurately, so you can give them resources to go and create their ideas. The axiom of humility regresses everyone toward the mean—which is great when the GDP is measured in bushels, but not so great when it is measured in transistors.
Becoming humble in front of people who suck is learning the wrong life lesson
