So I like that talent vs. skill post, and it really rings true to me as someone who was singled out as “talented” but still needed to develop skills to be able to do the thing professionally at all, and is really just one of many doing the thing.
But as I’ve mentioned before I ALSO think that sometimes tumblr acts like talent ISNT a thing, and I feel… less comfortable about that. I get the idea, and hell the science, behind “tell kids they made a wonderful effort, not that they’re smart” and I just…
I don’t know. I was abused. I worry that if people had never noticed my gift, or noticed it but never commented on it, I might have had nothing at all. In my darkest days at least I was smart in a unique way, and that was special. I might never have thought I deserved to live if there wasn’t SOMETHING special to preserve.
So iunno. I think research on what motivates kids is important, but… I’m not completely convinced that talking about talents is out of bounds.
Like… I was reading as a baby. Not a toddler. I’m not sure how people were supposed to not notice that so they could make my reading about “effort.”
I didn’t know what phonics was until I watched NT kids sound words out and went “that seems handy.”
Other kids stopped me and made me spell words for them, while they looked at them written on paper. If I got it wrong, I got made fun of.
I feel like making talent the elephant in the room will get people bullied for being neuroatypical, just like they get bullied for *not* being able to do things.
Talking about effort instead of talent is super critical if you are trying to encourage individual children in their education/development, but beyond that I think avoiding discussion of talent does a disservice to literally everyone.
Like, framing you as a reader as only about effort does exactly the disservice to you you describe, and it tells the kid on the other side of the room with undiagnosed dyslexia that they’re problems are entirely their fault.
I mean, its possible to go too far in either of these directions. Its true that talent is not the be all and end all, and if you struggle with something, you can still get better at it, and even eventually excel at it, if you are willing to put in a lot of hard work. But its wrong to not admit that for some people the amount of work necessary will be more, and for some people it will be less.
This, exactly! I’m so glad you get it.
It’s not that I think the observations about effort vs. talent are WRONG, it’s that… sometimes people do things in their head.
And while I’m sure that’s complex processing, it’s usually not processing the person has access to. Usually the experience is “I just know.”
It’s important to emphasize to that person that they also can develop related skills, and that they’re not likely to remain notable for whatever it is as an adult if they don’t, but… calling that talent just sounds confusing to me.
“Wow, you *really tried* hard to tell that sign said No Smoking but was missing a K!”
The Canadian government will launch a contest this fall for First Nations communities to win $30 million toward innovative housing projects on reserve.
The Indigenous Homes Innovation Challenge has been billed by the federal government as a national competition designed to help close the housing gap for First Nations people on reserves.
But the concept is drawing some negative attention from the public — it’s been referred to as the “Hunger Games of on-reserve housing,” by advocate Arnell Tailfeathers.
“This issue of housing and poverty is not to be relegated to something as demeaning as a contest in order to win prize money,” said Mary Teegee, chair of the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies Provincial Forum.
“I do believe that, while however well-intentioned it may be, it absolutely misses the mark of dealing with the issues, which is really that housing issues within First Nations communities, they’re at a crisis point.”
“I mean, sure, $30 mil is only a drop in the bucket and doesn’t even begin to touch the constructive neglect we’ve treated you with for centuries, but dance for your scraps or we’ll let you starve.”
1600s: most witch-hunts ended in this century. no witches were burned in North America; they were hanged or in one case pressed to death
1700s: the American Revolution. Marie Antoinette. the French Revolution. the crazy King George. most pirate movies
1800-1830: Jane Austen! Pride and Prejudice! those dresses where the waist is right under one’s boobs and men have a crapton of facial hair inside high collars
1830-1900: Victorian. Les Miserables is at the beginning, the Civil War is in the middle, and Dracula is at the end
1900-1920: Edwardian. Titanic, World War I, the Samantha books from American Girl, Art Nouveau
1920s: Great Gatsby. Jazz Age. Flappers and all that. most people get this right but IT IS NOT VICTORIAN. STUFF FROM THIS ERA IS NOT VICTORIAN. DO NOT CALL IT VICTORIAN OR LIST IT ON EBAY AS VICTORIAN. THAT HAPPENS SURPRISINGLY OFTEN GIVEN HOW STAGGERING THE VISUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ERAS IS. also not 100 years ago yet, glamour.com “100 years of X” videos. you’re lazy, glamour.com. you’re lazy and I demand my late Edwardian styles
I just saw people referencing witch burning and Marie Antoinette on a post about something happening in 1878. 1878. when there were like trains and flush toilets and early plastic and stuff. if you guys learn nothing else about history, you should at least have vague mental images for each era
“Les Miserables is at the beginning, the Civil War is in the middle, and Dracula is at the end” sounds like the longest weirdest worst movie I’d pay to see in theatres five times.
It’s also a really good way to sum up exactly how much the “victorian era” actually covers. Like, 80% of the freaking industrial revolution. All of the US “wild west” era, plus 20 years before and 20 years after.
hey guys i have taken over the official swedish twitter account @sweden for the week which means i am now legally the king and also prime minister of sweden (go there and interact with my tweets please i am begging you)
Context: my teacher translated the verb “to grasp with one’s hand” as “to fist” since that’s kinda what it literally means, but you can’t translate it like that into English because “to fist” means something ENTIRELY different, but she doesn’t know that.
So she was explaining how they use the verb to describe the angel of death taking your soul — he rips your soul out of you with his fist. Now that’s pretty damn metal, but she said word for word “the angel of death fists you, and then you die” which is the single most terrifying and powerful sentence to ever grace my ears
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.