Vassar’s essay may benefit from a thorough rewrite, in my opinion. Certain sentences seem to make desperate attempts at describing the intension of his personal views. For example, the following lines required several rereads.
Some of those programs allocate attention to things that can be understood fairly rigorously, like a cart, a plow, or a sword. Other programs allocate attention to more complicated things, such as the long-term alliances and reproductive opportunities within a tribe. The former programs might involve situational awareness and detailed planning, while the latter programs might operate via subtle and tacit pattern detection and automatic obedience to crude heuristics.
Although, it is easy to see how one develops such a style of exposition, spending most waking hours trawling through research.
However, more to the point, the conclusion that I came to was that Vassar was advocating educational reform, moving towards something similar to the Montessori approach, and for what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree.
Would agree about my reading of his short essay?
Mildly. The essay seems suggestive of a 10th point, which I described above. However, the truth lies with the original author, not me.
How solid do you think his argument is?
8⁄10. The most striking segment of his argument, in my opinion, is the following line.
However, with their attention placed on esteem, their concrete reasoning underdeveloped and their school curriculum poorly absorbed, such leaders aren’t well positioned to create value.
However, with their attention placed on esteem, their concrete reasoning underdeveloped and their school curriculum poorly absorbed, such leaders aren’t well positioned to create value.
Also relevant is Paul Graham’s, Why Nerds are Unpopular. Take away: Nerds are unpopular because they don’t care about being popular and instead want to focus their attention on non-social pursuits.
Actually pg claimed they do care, to the point of depression and suicide when they turn out to not be popular. His point was that they don’t only care about popularity, which is what is required to achieve it in the highly competitive high-school social scene.
Vassar’s essay may benefit from a thorough rewrite, in my opinion. Certain sentences seem to make desperate attempts at describing the intension of his personal views. For example, the following lines required several rereads.
Although, it is easy to see how one develops such a style of exposition, spending most waking hours trawling through research.
However, more to the point, the conclusion that I came to was that Vassar was advocating educational reform, moving towards something similar to the Montessori approach, and for what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree.
Mildly. The essay seems suggestive of a 10th point, which I described above. However, the truth lies with the original author, not me.
8⁄10. The most striking segment of his argument, in my opinion, is the following line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds
http://www.amazon.com/Disciplined-Minds-Critical-Professionals-Soul-battering/dp/0742516857
Jessica L. Tracy’s response to the Edge question is relevant to this. It’s somewhat speculative, yet it is consistent with what we know about the attitude of very high-achieving folks, who do not generally show narcissistic tendencies. Compare: Eliezer on Competent Elites; Eric S. Raymond on the relevance of verifiable, technical achievement.
Thus, it may be that the emphasis on self-esteem in education backfired due to fairly basic tendencies of human psychology and cognition.
Also relevant is Paul Graham’s, Why Nerds are Unpopular. Take away: Nerds are unpopular because they don’t care about being popular and instead want to focus their attention on non-social pursuits.
Actually pg claimed they do care, to the point of depression and suicide when they turn out to not be popular. His point was that they don’t only care about popularity, which is what is required to achieve it in the highly competitive high-school social scene.
But yes, very relevant.