we need to identify the factors that enabled this awesome kid to have the background knowledge, tools, environment etc and see how we can replicate them to find other such diamonds in the wild...
We seem to have a strange anti-intellectual bias in our culture when it comes to children.
I mean I was not pushed hard as a kid to play guitar or play football/wrestling but I was pushed. It took quite a bit of time before I really fell in love with playing guitar. It is hard to fall in love with something when you suck at it. I needed to be pushed. Sports were fun at the time but we completely overstate the value of organized sports IMO.
I don't know why we see playing a musical instrument as something different than learning scientific instruments. We expect the kid to just naturally be driven in science from day one and pushing them is seen as something morally off.
It reminds me of the crazy hockey parent that pushes their kid way too hard in hockey. While some kids might end up hating hockey, a huge % just end up being really good hockey players compared to the average person. People tend to fall in love with things they are good at.
I am childfree but if I did have a kid I would be a science version of the hockey parent and let the chips fall as they may. The risk/reward is just massive for the kid.
To what end? Our world is not short of this kind of talent, at any age. Those that have these abilities will get there, in time. So maybe it would be better at that age to teach them to paint, throw a baseball, fly fish, travel, etc.
Why should they be taught to paint or to throw a baseball but not to use a tool (like a program, etc)
I was merely saying that the knowledge and facilities to paint, to play baseball or program should be accessible, and kids must be exposed to the fact that they exist... then, the kids pick per their inclination?
knowledge does not motivate people to do great things.
what children need to learn first and foremost is to be good people, create the desire to help others and contribute to society.
once they have that, they drive themselves to learn what they need in order to achieve that.
this kid here had the drive to solve a problem because they had experienced it themselves. it doesn't matter how they solved it and how much help they got, what matters is what drove them to solve the problem in the first place.
if we can create that drive then any of the above, whether it is art, sports or programming will happen based on the kids motivation.
I mean I was not pushed hard as a kid to play guitar or play football/wrestling but I was pushed. It took quite a bit of time before I really fell in love with playing guitar. It is hard to fall in love with something when you suck at it. I needed to be pushed. Sports were fun at the time but we completely overstate the value of organized sports IMO.
I don't know why we see playing a musical instrument as something different than learning scientific instruments. We expect the kid to just naturally be driven in science from day one and pushing them is seen as something morally off.
It reminds me of the crazy hockey parent that pushes their kid way too hard in hockey. While some kids might end up hating hockey, a huge % just end up being really good hockey players compared to the average person. People tend to fall in love with things they are good at.
I am childfree but if I did have a kid I would be a science version of the hockey parent and let the chips fall as they may. The risk/reward is just massive for the kid.