[noamyoungerm]

Gifted people always end up turning out average. Because they aren't special. Nearly every school catering to the middle class and up has a 'gifted' program. How many kids is that? Millions per grade. Everyone who passes through that filter gets to think of themselves as a 'smart person'. In a given K-12 grade, there are 60000 students in the 99th percentile (whatever that means) per criterion.

But that's not enough - parents want to make sure their kid is special. The kind that wins Nobel Prizes. We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. So maybe your next filter could be some competition. Being accepted to [0] means you are in the top 1500 at doing a hobby science project. We have a long series of K-12 filters (olympiads, languages, music, early university, chess, etc.) and each one ends up with its own few (100-10000) best.

We want to set up our kid for success, but the only way we can have any sort of prediction is by putting the kid through filter after filter after filter and hoping they pass all of them. And if they pass the first three and not the fourth? Then now you have to deal with the fact that our prediction says that they will spend the rest of their life with a regular family and a regular job rather than being something spectacular. And if they pass every test they meet? Well there are 50 other people who matched the same set of tests as they did. How do we select which 49 will end up being normal adults? And what if the next Linus Torvalds ends up being someone who passed some of the filters, but not all of them?

There is no predictor for success. Kids should be encouraged to try and prove themselves, but only so long as they enjoy it so much they continue to choose to pursue this during their own free time.

[0] https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef

[contingencies]

We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. ... or perhaps we need to simply admit that aspects of life outside of formal education including blind luck and chance may contribute overwhelmingly to these types of transformation later in life. Success and life goals are relative, subjective, and frankly optional anyway. There is an argument to be made for the notion that parents and especially the state have no business over-defining these things for young people, particularly given the rapidly changing nature of the global social and technological landscape.

[studentrob]

> the state have no business over-defining these things for young people

Agreed. Hope you don't mind if I shoot the shit a little. You got me thinking.

The state sets a goal for us to make as much money as we can. It educates towards that. Banks incentivize saving, and the system promises more money if you make more money. When a country makes more money it can provide more for its citizens. Military protection and domestic luxuries. It's up to us as individuals to decide when we have done enough work, learned enough, or have enough money. The state will never say you've done "enough". Banks won't, and your parents won't either. They can't make that decision for you because everyone's potential varies based on environmental factors. You must make that decision yourself. And as individuals I believe none of us ever want to underperform. Yet we also don't want to be super stressed. So we try some stuff and see what sticks. What level of work and money allows us to move forward and experience new things? It's a lifelong effort to find out. We don't know for sure what we can or can't do tomorrow. Every day we have a different set of variables and opportunities.

I'm not sure this is anything new

[SZJX]

I've always hated this notion of being "gifted" and "successful". What does that ever mean? Everybody should have his/her own life to live and experience in full. Trying to force such an shallow and meaningless mainstream value on everybody is a totally terrible thing to do. Not to mention your view seems to indicate that being "special" means something innate, something "determined at birth", which is a horrible model to begin with.