[anthonyarroyo]

"Schooling in general is a waste of time because it caters to this idea that life evolves around English, Math, Art, Science and General Knowledge. But real life doesn’t, and these things don’t help children figure out what they are good at or enjoy."

Sorry to nitpick, but how can life not evolve around General Knowledge which, ostensibly, includes all knowledge. Agree with the sentiment, disagree with the argument.

"The greatest disservice to a cause is to defend it with poor arguments." -- Some Famous Guy Dead Guy Who Couldn't Program

[philliphaydon]

Maybe generalizing like that is bad.

Take English for example: In school we used to analyze poems from World War 1 / 2, and we had to explain why the poet used this word, that sentence, this style, etc.

The truth is, there's no English Answer. The person wrote what he felt, what he smelt, saw, heard, etc. He felt that those words and sentences best described the what he wanted to say.

Yet we butcher these poems on speculation and assumptions. We don't learn anything from this in my opinion. The entire process of analyzing books/poems/movies in English class is silly.

With math we are forced to learn how to measure the volume of a triangle... Sure there may be some time in life where you might put this to use, but MOST people would never need to know this type of math, we need to instill general maths but we need to de-emphasize math and allow kids to focus on things they are interested in and allow them to be creative and learn to their full potential, if that means they want to go learn advanced math! By all means let them!

[EliRivers]

"Yet we butcher these poems on speculation and assumptions. We don't learn anything from this in my opinion. The entire process of analyzing books/poems/movies in English class is silly."

I have conversations with people (adults) who clearly never had to do these things (or any other similar study of the written word). It's like having a conversation with a child; they miss puns, subtext, irony, sarcasm, struggle to consider more than one conflicting opinion at a time, struggle to interpret beyond the purely literal and struggle to communicate their own thoughts to others. An inability to communicate beyond such a low level is crippling.

[shadowfox]

Interestingly, I have come across at least a couple of people who took great pride in being extremely literal about what they are saying.

One person explained that he did not want to be misunderstood and thus will always speak literally. (He, unfortunately, seemed to expect other people do this too. Which didnt happen all that often. Ergo misunderstandings)

[lutusp]

> Sorry to nitpick, but how can life not evolve around General Knowledge which, ostensibly, includes all knowledge.

The answer is obvious -- most of those who excel, who create breakthroughs, do it by specializing. This is not argue against general knowledge, only to say that specialization is an element of nearly every success story and scientific breakthrough.

There's even a new psychological theory about specializing, that celebrates focusing on a few things, or one -- it's called "Grit":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)

"Grit in psychology is a positive, non-cognitive trait, based on an individual’s passion for a particular long-term goal or endstate coupled with a powerful motivation to achieve their respective objective."

An example would be Albert Einstein working alone for years on his relativity theory, to the exclusion of any other activities.

But, just to prove how consistent psychologists are, the exact same behavior can get you an Asperger's diagnosis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

"... an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

These two theories describe the exact same behavior -- intense focus and specialization, but come to opposite conclusions -- it's good. No, wait, it's bad.

Given that there are two opposing but equally plausible psychological theories about this kind of personal focus, guess which historical figure is now diagnosed with Asperger's? Albert Einstein. Along with Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and Bill Gates.

More here: http://arachnoid.com/building_science

[EliRivers]

"These two theories describe the exact same behavior"

I disagree. One of them is about long-term passion for a goal. One of them is about social inability.

It's quite possible to have both at the same time. It's quite possible to have just one. It's quite possible to have neither. They are not the same thing.

[lutusp]

> I disagree.

You didn't disagree. Your reply distinguishes the behaviors based on whose explanation you're listening to, not the behavior itself.

> One of them is about long-term passion for a goal.

> One of them is about social inability.

Yes -- that's the why, not the what. The behavior is the same, but the explanation is different, and it differs based on who is talking.

Two groups of psychologists have identified the same behavior. One of them celebrates it, says it's how we accomplish great things. The other condemns it, says it's a mental illness. And both of them identify the same people -- Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and Bill Gates, among others -- as being terrific examples of grit, or mentally ill, based on the same behavior.

[EliRivers]

I maintain that they are not the same. The principal behaviour of Aspergers is a social inability. The principal behaviour of Grit is passion for a long-term goal.

In your original post, I take issue with this in particular: "These two theories describe the exact same behavior -- intense focus and specialization". I disagree. I believe only ONE of them describes intense focus - grit. The other, Asperger's, describes social inability.

If they are the same thing, how is it possible that some people who are passionate about a long-term goal are socially adept and gregarious, and some people with Aspergers have no passion for any long-term goals?

Grit behaviour - passion for long term goal. Says nothing about social ability. It's very possible to have fantastic passion for a long term goal and be socially adept.

Asperger's behaviour - social inability. Says nothing about passion for long term goals. It's very possible to be Aspergic and have no passion for long term goals.

These are two different behaviours. You say they are the same behaviour - I completely disagree.

[lutusp]

> I maintain that they are not the same.

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were different. Only the behavior is the same. For a given behavior -- intense focus on a few activities or one activity -- the Grit contingent will celebrate it, and the Asperger contingent will issue a mental illness diagnosis.

> Asperger's behaviour - social inability. Says nothing about passion for long term goals.

First, Aspies achieve more than average people because their focus produces long-term results as an effect of their focus. You're confusing causes and effects.

Being a world-class concert pianist or violinist is not a symptom of ASperger's, it's an effect, an outcome, that springs from intense focus, and intense focus is a symptom of Asperger's.

Second, are you really not getting this? Psychology is driven by opinion, not evidence. For a given behavior, you will get two (or more) assessments from different psychological camps. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates are (a) famous, creative people, and (b) Aspies, based on the same set of behaviors. All that's different is which mental health expert is speaking.

"Famous People with Aspergers Syndrome":

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_2086.sh...

"Famous People with Aspergers Syndrome":

http://www.aspergerssyndromeparent.com/famous-people-with-as...

The Grit theory is an obvious acknowledgment that restricted interests sometimes produces amazing results, but the Asperger's people already knew that, while telling Aspies how mentally ill they are. It is all about how one chooses to interpret the same behavior.

> I believe only ONE of them describes intense focus - grit. The other, Asperger's, describes social inability.

You're mistaken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

Quote: "characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

Note "restricted ... interests" in the above definition of Asperger's.

The Grit contingent emphasizes the achievement of long-term goals, the Asperger contingent emphasizes social ineptitude. Both are describing the same behavior in different ways.

It's not as though this is an original idea -- it's why Asperger's is being abandoned as a diagnosis (too many successful people are being stigmatized with a pointless mental illness diagnosis).

"A Powerful Identity, a Vanishing Diagnosis":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag...

[EliRivers]

"Second, are you really not getting this?"

Yes, I really am not getting this. Earlier I thought you were saying that the two were in fact the same thing, but now you seem to be saying that they are different and they happen to have similar symptoms; although, frankly, the difference between an Aspergic obsessed with something and a passionate non-Aspergic obsessed about something are like chalk and cheese; a few minutes spent with each talking about their interest makes the two unmistakable - if it's identical behaviour, how come I can tell the two apart? How come I can think of heaps of people with grit who are not Aspergic and would not be described as such by even the most diagnosis-happy psychiatrist?

I think what you're saying is that they are different, and that it's possible to sometimes mistake one for the other, and some psychiatrists make this mistake. Is that what you're saying?