Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities; that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.

View on HN

We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.

Perhaps, but even in a utilitarian analysis it's worth challenging the idea that our outcomes would be maximized by further advantaging people with the skills we typically associate with "high IQ".

"In Europe and the U.S., support for research and educational programs for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more toward inclusion."

Not sure if utilitarian or humanitarian is the better metric, or if there is a real choice. The article does not seem to address the downsides to high prospect/low achievers.

Clearly there is a choice, since there's an obvious deontological argument against choosing a set of sparsely distributed human attributes as a basis for privileging some people above others.

If it is so common in sports, why not in intellectual development?

As far as I can tell, we in the US have more resources devoted to creating environments where equality is tested in only in material status, and to transcend this fairly prescribed order is to risk ostracism.

> We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.

It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com