Comment by kerkeslager | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kerkeslager | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad the author is talking about this problem, but I think there's a slight misidentification of the cause.

I don't think it's that we're supposed to be bad at things, it's that we're expected to already be good at things. This still applies (irrationally) even when:

1. There is no mechanism provided for becoming good at the things we're expected to be good at.

2. Most people aren't good at the things we're expected to be good at.

The underlying thing here, is that ignorance, a temporary condition, is conflated with stupidity, a permanent condition.

Carol Dweck puts this another way: she describes a "fixed" mindset, where people believe that mistakes are examples of their inherent value, and therefore fear taking risks, and try to hide their mistakes. This is contrasted with a "growth" mindset, in which mistakes are seen as a necessary part of growth and risks are seen as learning opportunities.

Also related is Brene Brown's theory of vulnerability as being a necessary part of forming relationships.

I will say, I'm not entirely convinced by all the details of either Carol Dweck's mindset theory or Brene Brown's vulnerability theory, but the generalities seem to be evident in my own life.

EDIT: I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of their self-worth in being knowledgeable. My personal experience is that growing up I based a lot of my self-worth in "being smart" so anyone disagreeing with me or pointing out something I didn't know felt like an attack on the very thing that made me feel worthwhile. Building real self-esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps with real knowledge. I'm still a growing person, and I'm still not good at this, but the progress I have made has improved my life immensely.

This was my experience in most of my primary and secondary education (K-12) in Canada. If you were good at something right away, math, science, 2nd language, art, even gym class, you basically got some instruction and were able to learn a bit more and maybe even excel. This was my experience in Math and Science (I'm a Scientist/Engineer now). However, learning French, I struggled and rapidly fell behind. If you didn't excel you didn't really get enough teaching or attention to learn. Basically, as you say, you were expected to already just be good at stuff even from a young age and the system appeared to be designed around this idea. Learning (and critically practice) takes a lot of time for most things and everyone isn't good at it right away.

I had a similiar experience with driving lessons, I didn't take naturally to it and the limited number of lessons and the relative ease by which you can pass the test means I never really learned adequately during the "learning period" before you are granted a full license. In this case my mom forced me to continue and I continued to practice and eventually became competent and mostly comfortable. Many other activities I just gave up, no one wanted me on their T-ball team.

"the system appeared to be designed around this idea"

It is. If you have a bunch of people tied together by chronological age, who only in extreme circumstances can be held back or advanced early, in a 20th century classroom environment all sitting together listening to one person "teach", then structurally, an environment is created that can handle only one speed of learning. There is no good choice for that one speed, because the standard deviation is too large. In the worst cases, since neither the teaching pace nor the learning pace is itself a constant, you end up with a situation that serves no one at all a good chunk of the time.

I'm not saying this was or is the deliberate intent; it's just what the structure inevitably produces. It's not clear how to structure it any other way with 20th century technology in a cost-effective manner (e.g., "classrooms of 3 people" was never on the table). I'm hoping we'll start cracking this nut in the next few years, though. The tech is increasingly there and it's the social inertia about what school has "always been" holding us back now.

Homeschooling is a simple, effective way to achieve "classrooms of three people".

It is brutally difficult, as you have to sacrifice many of the things you want to do in favor of things your kids want to learn and do, but it is worth every ounce of that sacrifice.

It's also a very costly method that many people cannot afford. Doubly so if it'll impact the long-term career prospects of the parent that spends their time teaching.

Is it?

If one of you stays at home with kids, all the costs of childcare and that partner's potential commute are removed.

Anecdotally, I've met people who homeschooled because they thought it was cheaper than their other options.

If you're in an expensive school district, then you receive little benefit from your relatively high school taxes, but so it goes.

Again anecdotally, one of the poorest persons I've ever personally known pulled her kids out of public school to homeschool them.

I thought she was unqualified (despite my pro-homeschooling bias), but she got them from remedial classes to gifted status in two years, IIRC (when she put them back in school).

Some of my assumptions changed after that.

> Anecdotally, I've met people who homeschooled because they thought it was cheaper than their other options.

This almost, but not quite, matches my anecdotal experience. Basically, from what I've seen, it's not that it's cheaper[1] to homeschool, it's two things:

1. They don't trust the childcare they can afford. You can hire a 16 year old to care for your kid for minimum wage, but a trustworthy adult costs more.

2. The work they could be doing does gain them some net income, but the net income isn't worth the effort. I.e. if you can work for $30/hour for 8 hours with a 2 hour commute, and childcare is $20/hour, that's $30 * 8 = $240, $20 * 10 = $200, $240 - $200 = $40, $40 / 10 = a whopping $4/hour. It's not cheaper to homeschool, but it's not worth it to work for $4/hour.

[1] I'm interpreting "cheaper" to mean "cheaper in terms of money"--if that's not what you meant, my apologies.

> I'll also add that this conflation is particularly damaging to people and communities where intelligence is highly valued, and people base much of their self-worth in being knowledgeable

Another issue with intelligence-idolizing environments like the ones you describe is that if you don't find a way to gain the self-esteem needed to admit not knowing something, you might end up coping by pretending that you know that thing, and in doing so, suppressing your propensity to curiosity and growth, and increasing your propensity to use BS and manipulation - both of which admittedly also require a lot of intelligence.

> Building real self-esteem made it possible for me to start seeing that when I don't know something that doesn't decrease my value as a person. This has allowed me to admit I don't know things more often, and actually fill in some of those gaps with real knowledge.

I had the same transformative experience early in my life of developing the self-esteem to admit that I don't know things. It goes hand in hand with the skill of asking more questions of others than telling them what you know.

Just to point out: Hacker News is definitely an intelligence-idolizing environment. :)

Yep, which is what makes your original comment so interesting in this context.

It so visible whenever people react to mistakes: some will seek fault to play the blame/punishment game. Other will see it as opportunity to learn and to try it differently the next time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com