If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this
Once again, somebody who completely misunderstands the difference between a copyright and a model release. The subject of the photograph doesn't own the copyright (except under very specific contractual situations). By default, the person who creates the image owns the copyright from the moment of the image's creation. But that doesn't grant them the liberty to use someone's likeness for commercial purposes. For that, you need an signed release that includes compensation (if it's just a token - like a print of the image, if not cash... but it's usually phrased along the lines of, "In consideration of valuable compensation... blah blah").
Why does this matter? Because the subject of the photograph might be more than happy to have their image used commercially, but might be a rabid vegan, and not want their likeness used to endorse a small grocery store that specializes in foie gras or baby seal tenderloin or something else equally tasty. Many models don't get the luxury of choosing how their images will be used when they sign a release, since they don't have the contractual muscle for that sort of thing until they're well established. But even a broad-language commercial release signed by the model doesn't grant defamatory use, or use that might alter how your reputation plays out.
Consider a photograph of someone like, say, Lance Armstrong riding across the finish line in a race. He might understandibly not want that used in an advertisement for Preparation H, to be run in a newspaper aimed at the gay demographic. Or maybe he would. The point is that he and he can consider issues like that when he signs a release, and use such considerations to limit use of the image.
That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. The subject of the photograph isn't the creator of the work. Curiously, you seem to desire both a situation where a family photograph of you is used in the next Viagra campaign (with a caption that says, "Our product can even help this guy!"), but you also want people who go to the trouble and expense to produce creeative works to have no means to license them in a way that can generate income. Doesn't mean that a given artist will produce anything that can be commercially licensed for compensation, but you don't even want them to have that choice.
Your thoughts about the "evolution" of artists' and subjects' rights being better if both of those parties lost any control over their work are: wrong.
Not to mention that the new system's radiation is so strong that it seems to have entered your brain and completely messed up your understanding of the words "loosing" and "to."
Other than that... just get a higher gain antenna, if you're not going to use cable, fiber, or satellite service.
I don't see how - from a constitutional perspective - it's especially important to enumerate (or even mention) "digital" or "online" rights in any form. Stick with freedoms of speech, privacy, assembly, and commerce, and let the legislative bodies worry about whatever particular media type or communication method happens to be popular that month... and then let the courts decide if challenges to the legislature's actions are in keeping with the fundamentals. Constitutions are about what the government cannot do, and getting granular (to the point of making a distinction between cell phones and land lines, or between postal mail and e-mail, or between online banking and walk-up banking) is a bad fit in a document like that.
It happens with more then just software, the same applies to cars, electronics, etc.
Something tells me, though, that the EC doesn't make BMW sell customers a car without an engine (or seats, or a radio - pick a part that everyone thinks should come WITH the car), and then facilitate the customer's shopping for those parts from rival companies.
Whereas I think the EU are after something that says "You'll need an internet explorer, Please select which you would like to download and install *internet explorer *firefox *safari *chrime".
How about, "Being able to display web content is now an essential part of using your operating system. As the makers of that operating system, we've provided a web browsing application that does a very nice job. You can change to another web browsing any time you want, just by visiting this link: www.microsoft.com/free_advertising_for_competitors"
If the EC put a little bit of effort into, oh, I don't know, putting up a typical European billboard with a topless model explaining that there are other browsers out there, so just install one if you want to... gee, wouldn't that be better than forcing their governments into a private company's product life cycle?
The EU is doing what the USA should have done a decade ago
What, get government involved in the design of software products? Perhaps they should also dictate which file system you're allowed to easily enable with Linux distros that happen to be provided by private companies when they ship netbooks? How about the choices of desktop wallpaper? And mouse pointer icons, of course. I think the EC should really set up a high priority commission to dictate the shape of mouse pointers, and to make sure that any successful operating system is only shipped with very poor mouse pointers, and advertisements for third party software vendors' mouse pointer icon product packages. I can't believe that the spineless EC has gone soft on the mouse pointer scandal.
You Americans talk so big - when someone else shows cohones you can only scream & stamp your little feet.
Yes, yes, Death To America, etc. You're so original!
Showing cohones? What are you talking about? All the EC is doing is telling a company from another country how they have to create the software they sell. It's not clear, exactly, why Europe is utterly lacking the cohones to give birth to a company that can create a better operating system, or actually cause another option to be more popular. Classic stuff, there. You're Brave and Studly because you are willing to use threats and destruction to tear down a company's products, rather than actually create something that competes with it. You'd rather cripple an operating system than build an operating system. So courageous! So progressive!
businessmen -- the people whose job it is to make money for themselves at the expense of everyone else
Ah, spoken like someone who has never run a business or cultivated customers (and kept them for years). Of course the role of a business is to make money. Their purpose is to reward the risk of putting your time and resources into running the business. And the rewards don't happen without customers - generally, repeat customers. Your fantasy comic book villain notion of "bussinessmen" betrays a twelve-year-old's understanding of what business actually is. That is, a twelve year old kid who's never mowed a lawn, walked a dog, or sold lemonade to generate comic book money.
And scientific academics and researchers -- the people whose job it is to think deeply about how things work
In my experience, many academics and ressearchers suffer from paralyzing tunnel vision, and are more focused on getting grants and tenure first, and actual productive research second, and a balanced, informed world view (that includes things like where money actually comes from) as a distant third.
Just ask the majority of reporters and news producers, who explicitly identify themselves as left-leaning and left-voting. They'll tell you it's not a myth. But they'll try to make every feel better about it by mentioning that, of course, their own world view and the way they want things like elections to wind up would never influence their editorial and reporting decisions, ever, ever, ever. No sirree.
Of course, you mean "available to all at someone else's cost," since nothing is free.
anything that a person "NEEDS" on a day to day basis should be government owned
So the government should own all food production, and all of the housing that we all live in?
Roads ensure a decent standard of living by encouraging trade. Which is where the submitter was going with funding research. It will help boost the standard of living by inventing new technology for the public.
Roads are not the same as basic research that may or may not go anywhere. Roads are a service, and are also central to security/defense (actual, real roles for the government). Basic research - with all of its dead ends - is not a service (like roads). Rather, it's a gamble. And it's better to let private sector companies with something at stake figure out early on whether an avenue of research is going to bear fruit. Government and academic programs are primarily interested in preserving themselves, not in the results.
This kid, and much of commentary surrounding him and his own comments, just touches on that whole tangle of issues surrounding the phony self esteem movement, outcome-based grading and graduation policies (social promition), and all of the baggage that it produces in kids that are not as bright as the one in question. I just find it unfortunate that he has to add any fuel to that smelly fire, that's all.
I do think that positive reinforcement tends to have more success than trying to subdivide the world into the have's vs have-not's
Who's talking about assigning people into "have-not" status? I want people to have. I'm bothered by the strange cultural traditions of modern education and child rearing that seem explicitly planned to set kids up for an unpleasant crash into have-not status because they haven't been prepared for what it takes to actually create the value in life that gets you into "have" mode. When you're a kid, you're often paid in the currency of praise. There is runaway inflation in that currency right now, but no consequences for that until later, when the kid is on his or her own, and the real world shows up. Then, the praise currency is swapped out for grocery/rent/insurance currency, and nobody is doling any of it out to see if that will make you more productive later.
The real world pays for results. The self esteem movement pays for existence. It's cruel to not help kids figure that out early. The positive reinforcement you prefer has to actually reinforce something. Like, say, an achievement of some kind - even if modest. The problem is that "existing" is being treated like an achievement, now - and that wretchedly skews a kid's sense of causality, and of future prospect as the fruit of actual work and dedication.
Any time a genuinely motivated kid like the one in question plays down the fact that his (genuine) achievement is the result of an unfortunately rare level of hard work and dedication, it chips away at the wider cultural message that prosperity in life comes from having a work ethic. For some reason, too many adults think they need to hide that fact from their kids, as if it were mean to say it out loud or something. When a kid like this has the pulpit, as he does at the moment, it would be nice if he didn't feel social pressure to obscure that fact... or if the adults who choose which of his sentences to reproduce in an article didn't make it appear that way.
he is STILL willing to entertain the possibility that any other individual may be substantially better at something than he is
Sure. But he actually asserts that "each one is" (emphasis mine). That's the part that chafes. It's wishful thinking that, said out loud, won't impact his life at all, but will impact the lives of people who will uncomfortably discover - when they get to their first job - that at least some of what their mom and their junior high school social studies teacher said to them about how very special they personally are... is quite possibly BS. Knowing that you don't have a magic Shield O' Specialness around you, no matter how much your grandmother seems to imply that that's the case, can be an important part of realizing the need to actually pursue and develop some actual specialness before you're too far along in life. Why short circuit that process of coming to terms with that reality by assuring everyone that they're magically unique and just as smart (in their own way!) as an unusually bright student who's truly a one in a million sort of kid?
Telling people how much smarter you are than them is a good way to ensure you spend Friday night in the basement playing video games.
You're missing the point. It's not about saying how much smarter he is (though obviously his parents and teachers are already doing that, ad nauseum). It's about not saying obviously patronizing stuff about how everyone else is just as smart as he is. When you tell the kid who does spend every Friday night in the basement playing video games (instead of doing the hard work that this kid obviously spent his Friday nights doing) that he's just as smart as an astrophysicist, you're telling that couch potato kid that he doesn't have to worry about his place in the world, or fret about personal discipline, or strive to position himself for a challenging future - nope! He's just as smart as an astrophysicist, yessiree! Don't give it another thought! Pass the bag of chips and a game controller!
When a kid this smart reinforces the notion that he's nothing special, what does that say to the kid who doesn't understand whether or how to make anything of himself? Sugarcoating the hard work that's reflected in that academic degree just robs it of meaning.
You want to talk about needing to get along with others? I know plenty of smarty-pants academics and techno/science nerds, and many of them are socially awkward (to say the least). But the most obnoxious, hardest-to-work-with, least appealing people I've ever met? The ones who are still coasting with the inflated sense of self esteem that was shoved down their throat in public school, and who are - out in the real world - just starting to figure out that they're not nearly as special as their grade inflation would have led them to believe, and they're trying to make up for that through sheer bluster, BS, and deflection whenever reality comes anywhere nearby. Those are the people who are hard to get along with, because they're realizing that they aren't who they've been told they are, and it's got them rather angry.
You have a gift with words. It's almost like we can see the spittle on your monitor!
And you have an interesting way of avoiding the substance of the matter. Which, actually, is quite in keeping with your earlier comment - so, I suppose that's fitting. All comments are of equal substance! Every comment is just as smart, in its own way, as any other! I can't believe how subtle and clever you are, making your point that way. Of course we're all just as clever, in our own ways, so I guess you're nothing special. Or are you? I guess we're all extraordinary! I think everyone should get tenure, a Nobel Prize, and a cabinet position in the new administration, just for showing up.
Right. But there is something wrong in telling an average kid that he's just as smart as an eleven year old astrophysicist. Where's the incentive to learn the same discpline and hard work that the kid scientist has already exhibited? Where's the humility in falsely (and, inevitably, temporarily) inflating the self esteem of kids that haven't shown the same drive, but are now getting the same praise?
Which means what, exactly? That he's a quick study when it comes to what seems to go over well among the adults in his academic life? That he's acutely aware of which platitudes will be received with smiles, and cause little friction? Yes, that's handy. But it's also a fundamental part of what holds so many average kids back from being excellent in anything. When all they hear from kids who should be role models is that they are already just as smart as the junior astrophysicist, then what's the point of getting to the bottom of the work ethic, discipline, and drive of such a student, and emulating it? No need! We're all already just as smart as him, in our own way! OMG!Let's go fire up WoW!
You know what's not typical nowadays? Modesty, honesty, and respect.
So, let's see, here...
Modesty? You want everyone, at every level of capability or regardless of how much work they've put into what they do, to be considered equal? You think that kids should receive accolades for showing up, rather than for busting their asses and actually doing something? You think that the kids who do nothing but Wii all day should be held in the same esteem as a kid who racks up a degree in astrophysics by age eleven? This isn't about the kid with the brains and dedication, you idiot. It's about all of the average or sub-average kids who are being told the lie that they are already just as smart as he is. Which does nothing but distort their view of the world, and undermine any sense of urgency they might have to better themselves and get ready for real work in their lives - the better to be able to take it all in stride and thrive. It's not about the eleven year old graduate's modesty or lack of it. It's about the vaporware foundation for the self esteem that all of his lazier counterparts are being propped up on (only to come crashing down, later).
Honesty? Do you really think it's honest to tell all of this hard working kid's peers that they're all just as smart as he is? To diminish what he's done by telling all of those kids that hard, difficult work really doesn't matter and that everyone is the same... and that everyone should get the same outcome in their lives regardless of whether they hustle and study and work hard and focus, or not? Is that honestly how you think the world should be? Everyone gets the same of everything, no matter how hard they're willing to work, how well they teach themselves to focus on a task, and no matter how inspired they are, compared to everyone else?
Respect? Yeah, I can tell you have a lot of respect for the kid that did the hard work, here. You want to make sure that nobody else feels bad for not, themselves having a degree in astrophysics at eleven years old. I suppose that your own way of showing respect would be to now give those out to all of the other eleven year olds in the neighborhood, so none of them feel bad about having no idea what such a degree even represents? Way to respect the other eleven year olds, there. Make sure they go into life completely confused about what gets them from point A to point B. Disarm them of any critical thinking skills. Very respectful of you.
And for you to call him shallow because he appreciates that and is modest is - well, you said it best - Shallow
What I'm really complaining about is that, despite his obvious high wattage, his teachers (and parents, obviously) have trained him to spout the "everyone is equally special" mantra, and that he - understandibly - doesn't have the backbone or urge to be as insightful and frank about his social observations as he is about astrophysics. You want modesty? What he should be doing is preaching hard work as the path to achievement, not blowing smoke about how inately smart everyone is, just like him, because that's what the adults in his life have given him to say.
True modesty would be shown in his ability to inspire lack-of-blowhardedness in other people. Instead, he's telling everyone that they're all as smart as an 11 year old astrophysicist. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that he has to either push fake self esteem for everyone else to savor, or be an arrogant ass. It's possible to be appropriately humble and to remind people that they don't all get a gold star for breathing.
Didn't your mother ever teach you never to pass on an opportunity to alliterate?
My mother made me master multi-syllabic meta-mutterings merely to modify my meandering mental malapropisms and to manipulate my meager mix of mangled messages into a more magnificent maelstrom of mightily meaningful... um... stuff.
He's not flaunting it (gee, other than getting press coverage about having a degree in astrophysics at the age of eleven!). But what he is doing is blowing a bunch of smoke of the asses of everyone who doesn't work that hard and apply themselves. "It's OK! You're all smart!"
Appreciating others' skills doesn't make it impossible to recognise your own . ..
But being unable to differentiate between varying levels of insight, discipline, practiced skills, quick-wittedness and such, or being unwilling to admit that you can tell the difference - that doesn't say much for the ol' critical thinking skills, or for how much one values honesty. Telling every under achieving glue sniffer that he's just as smart - in his own way, of course - as an 11 year old with a degree in astrophysics is... a big, fat, culturally corrisive lie. And telling the kid who could become a well polished beacon of reason once he matures a bit and learns to apply himself that, never mind, in his own way he's already just as smart as the kid in question? That's poisoning the well.
Maybe the super-duper evil genius is seeking out dozens of these smart kids in advance, hoping to create enough evil geniuses to serve as cannon fodder...
Well, there is, actually. And he's well on his way to collecting his team of subordinate evil geniuses. Unfortunately, some don't make the team because of a high rate of IRS/tax-related difficulties that show up during the nomination process, so he's still got a bunch of empty slots to fill.
... and for them to serve as a distraction for when he puts his ultimate plan for world domination into motion.
It's called "the stimulus package," and no comic book writer could possibly invent something more insidious, more full of plot twists, and more likely to produce spectacular unintended consequences.
"I don't consider myself a genius because there are 6.5 billion people in this world and each one is smart in his or her own way." That's a very special comment right there.
It's also an incredibly shallow triumph of an Olympic grade platitudinous pandering politically correct aphorism. The kid's teacher says he can "see right through the complications," but he's still been brainwashed into thinking that he's not unusual. What a shame. And how typical.
Slashdot Mirror
If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this
Once again, somebody who completely misunderstands the difference between a copyright and a model release. The subject of the photograph doesn't own the copyright (except under very specific contractual situations). By default, the person who creates the image owns the copyright from the moment of the image's creation. But that doesn't grant them the liberty to use someone's likeness for commercial purposes. For that, you need an signed release that includes compensation (if it's just a token - like a print of the image, if not cash... but it's usually phrased along the lines of, "In consideration of valuable compensation... blah blah").
Why does this matter? Because the subject of the photograph might be more than happy to have their image used commercially, but might be a rabid vegan, and not want their likeness used to endorse a small grocery store that specializes in foie gras or baby seal tenderloin or something else equally tasty. Many models don't get the luxury of choosing how their images will be used when they sign a release, since they don't have the contractual muscle for that sort of thing until they're well established. But even a broad-language commercial release signed by the model doesn't grant defamatory use, or use that might alter how your reputation plays out.
Consider a photograph of someone like, say, Lance Armstrong riding across the finish line in a race. He might understandibly not want that used in an advertisement for Preparation H, to be run in a newspaper aimed at the gay demographic. Or maybe he would. The point is that he and he can consider issues like that when he signs a release, and use such considerations to limit use of the image.
That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. The subject of the photograph isn't the creator of the work. Curiously, you seem to desire both a situation where a family photograph of you is used in the next Viagra campaign (with a caption that says, "Our product can even help this guy!"), but you also want people who go to the trouble and expense to produce creeative works to have no means to license them in a way that can generate income. Doesn't mean that a given artist will produce anything that can be commercially licensed for compensation, but you don't even want them to have that choice.
Your thoughts about the "evolution" of artists' and subjects' rights being better if both of those parties lost any control over their work are: wrong.
Not to mention that the new system's radiation is so strong that it seems to have entered your brain and completely messed up your understanding of the words "loosing" and "to."
Other than that... just get a higher gain antenna, if you're not going to use cable, fiber, or satellite service.
In fact, is a blog an assembly?
No, it's a publication.
I don't see how - from a constitutional perspective - it's especially important to enumerate (or even mention) "digital" or "online" rights in any form. Stick with freedoms of speech, privacy, assembly, and commerce, and let the legislative bodies worry about whatever particular media type or communication method happens to be popular that month... and then let the courts decide if challenges to the legislature's actions are in keeping with the fundamentals. Constitutions are about what the government cannot do, and getting granular (to the point of making a distinction between cell phones and land lines, or between postal mail and e-mail, or between online banking and walk-up banking) is a bad fit in a document like that.
It happens with more then just software, the same applies to cars, electronics, etc.
Something tells me, though, that the EC doesn't make BMW sell customers a car without an engine (or seats, or a radio - pick a part that everyone thinks should come WITH the car), and then facilitate the customer's shopping for those parts from rival companies.
Whereas I think the EU are after something that says "You'll need an internet explorer, Please select which you would like to download and install *internet explorer *firefox *safari *chrime".
How about, "Being able to display web content is now an essential part of using your operating system. As the makers of that operating system, we've provided a web browsing application that does a very nice job. You can change to another web browsing any time you want, just by visiting this link: www.microsoft.com/free_advertising_for_competitors"
If the EC put a little bit of effort into, oh, I don't know, putting up a typical European billboard with a topless model explaining that there are other browsers out there, so just install one if you want to... gee, wouldn't that be better than forcing their governments into a private company's product life cycle?
The EU is doing what the USA should have done a decade ago
What, get government involved in the design of software products? Perhaps they should also dictate which file system you're allowed to easily enable with Linux distros that happen to be provided by private companies when they ship netbooks? How about the choices of desktop wallpaper? And mouse pointer icons, of course. I think the EC should really set up a high priority commission to dictate the shape of mouse pointers, and to make sure that any successful operating system is only shipped with very poor mouse pointers, and advertisements for third party software vendors' mouse pointer icon product packages. I can't believe that the spineless EC has gone soft on the mouse pointer scandal.
You Americans talk so big - when someone else shows cohones you can only scream & stamp your little feet.
Yes, yes, Death To America, etc. You're so original!
Showing cohones? What are you talking about? All the EC is doing is telling a company from another country how they have to create the software they sell. It's not clear, exactly, why Europe is utterly lacking the cohones to give birth to a company that can create a better operating system, or actually cause another option to be more popular. Classic stuff, there. You're Brave and Studly because you are willing to use threats and destruction to tear down a company's products, rather than actually create something that competes with it. You'd rather cripple an operating system than build an operating system. So courageous! So progressive!
businessmen -- the people whose job it is to make money for themselves at the expense of everyone else
Ah, spoken like someone who has never run a business or cultivated customers (and kept them for years). Of course the role of a business is to make money. Their purpose is to reward the risk of putting your time and resources into running the business. And the rewards don't happen without customers - generally, repeat customers. Your fantasy comic book villain notion of "bussinessmen" betrays a twelve-year-old's understanding of what business actually is. That is, a twelve year old kid who's never mowed a lawn, walked a dog, or sold lemonade to generate comic book money.
And scientific academics and researchers -- the people whose job it is to think deeply about how things work
In my experience, many academics and ressearchers suffer from paralyzing tunnel vision, and are more focused on getting grants and tenure first, and actual productive research second, and a balanced, informed world view (that includes things like where money actually comes from) as a distant third.
The liberal news media is a conservative myth
Just ask the majority of reporters and news producers, who explicitly identify themselves as left-leaning and left-voting. They'll tell you it's not a myth. But they'll try to make every feel better about it by mentioning that, of course, their own world view and the way they want things like elections to wind up would never influence their editorial and reporting decisions, ever, ever, ever. No sirree.
available to all at no cost
Of course, you mean "available to all at someone else's cost," since nothing is free.
anything that a person "NEEDS" on a day to day basis should be government owned
So the government should own all food production, and all of the housing that we all live in?
Roads ensure a decent standard of living by encouraging trade. Which is where the submitter was going with funding research. It will help boost the standard of living by inventing new technology for the public.
Roads are not the same as basic research that may or may not go anywhere. Roads are a service, and are also central to security/defense (actual, real roles for the government). Basic research - with all of its dead ends - is not a service (like roads). Rather, it's a gamble. And it's better to let private sector companies with something at stake figure out early on whether an avenue of research is going to bear fruit. Government and academic programs are primarily interested in preserving themselves, not in the results.
Nah, not autobiographical. Just observational.
... or if the adults who choose which of his sentences to reproduce in an article didn't make it appear that way.
This kid, and much of commentary surrounding him and his own comments, just touches on that whole tangle of issues surrounding the phony self esteem movement, outcome-based grading and graduation policies (social promition), and all of the baggage that it produces in kids that are not as bright as the one in question. I just find it unfortunate that he has to add any fuel to that smelly fire, that's all.
I do think that positive reinforcement tends to have more success than trying to subdivide the world into the have's vs have-not's
Who's talking about assigning people into "have-not" status? I want people to have. I'm bothered by the strange cultural traditions of modern education and child rearing that seem explicitly planned to set kids up for an unpleasant crash into have-not status because they haven't been prepared for what it takes to actually create the value in life that gets you into "have" mode. When you're a kid, you're often paid in the currency of praise. There is runaway inflation in that currency right now, but no consequences for that until later, when the kid is on his or her own, and the real world shows up. Then, the praise currency is swapped out for grocery/rent/insurance currency, and nobody is doling any of it out to see if that will make you more productive later.
The real world pays for results. The self esteem movement pays for existence. It's cruel to not help kids figure that out early. The positive reinforcement you prefer has to actually reinforce something. Like, say, an achievement of some kind - even if modest. The problem is that "existing" is being treated like an achievement, now - and that wretchedly skews a kid's sense of causality, and of future prospect as the fruit of actual work and dedication.
Any time a genuinely motivated kid like the one in question plays down the fact that his (genuine) achievement is the result of an unfortunately rare level of hard work and dedication, it chips away at the wider cultural message that prosperity in life comes from having a work ethic. For some reason, too many adults think they need to hide that fact from their kids, as if it were mean to say it out loud or something. When a kid like this has the pulpit, as he does at the moment, it would be nice if he didn't feel social pressure to obscure that fact
he is STILL willing to entertain the possibility that any other individual may be substantially better at something than he is
... is quite possibly BS. Knowing that you don't have a magic Shield O' Specialness around you, no matter how much your grandmother seems to imply that that's the case, can be an important part of realizing the need to actually pursue and develop some actual specialness before you're too far along in life. Why short circuit that process of coming to terms with that reality by assuring everyone that they're magically unique and just as smart (in their own way!) as an unusually bright student who's truly a one in a million sort of kid?
Sure. But he actually asserts that "each one is" (emphasis mine). That's the part that chafes. It's wishful thinking that, said out loud, won't impact his life at all, but will impact the lives of people who will uncomfortably discover - when they get to their first job - that at least some of what their mom and their junior high school social studies teacher said to them about how very special they personally are
Telling people how much smarter you are than them is a good way to ensure you spend Friday night in the basement playing video games.
You're missing the point. It's not about saying how much smarter he is (though obviously his parents and teachers are already doing that, ad nauseum). It's about not saying obviously patronizing stuff about how everyone else is just as smart as he is. When you tell the kid who does spend every Friday night in the basement playing video games (instead of doing the hard work that this kid obviously spent his Friday nights doing) that he's just as smart as an astrophysicist, you're telling that couch potato kid that he doesn't have to worry about his place in the world, or fret about personal discipline, or strive to position himself for a challenging future - nope! He's just as smart as an astrophysicist, yessiree! Don't give it another thought! Pass the bag of chips and a game controller!
When a kid this smart reinforces the notion that he's nothing special, what does that say to the kid who doesn't understand whether or how to make anything of himself? Sugarcoating the hard work that's reflected in that academic degree just robs it of meaning.
You want to talk about needing to get along with others? I know plenty of smarty-pants academics and techno/science nerds, and many of them are socially awkward (to say the least). But the most obnoxious, hardest-to-work-with, least appealing people I've ever met? The ones who are still coasting with the inflated sense of self esteem that was shoved down their throat in public school, and who are - out in the real world - just starting to figure out that they're not nearly as special as their grade inflation would have led them to believe, and they're trying to make up for that through sheer bluster, BS, and deflection whenever reality comes anywhere nearby. Those are the people who are hard to get along with, because they're realizing that they aren't who they've been told they are, and it's got them rather angry.
You have a gift with words. It's almost like we can see the spittle on your monitor!
And you have an interesting way of avoiding the substance of the matter. Which, actually, is quite in keeping with your earlier comment - so, I suppose that's fitting. All comments are of equal substance! Every comment is just as smart, in its own way, as any other! I can't believe how subtle and clever you are, making your point that way. Of course we're all just as clever, in our own ways, so I guess you're nothing special. Or are you? I guess we're all extraordinary! I think everyone should get tenure, a Nobel Prize, and a cabinet position in the new administration, just for showing up.
There's nothing wrong with true humility.
Right. But there is something wrong in telling an average kid that he's just as smart as an eleven year old astrophysicist. Where's the incentive to learn the same discpline and hard work that the kid scientist has already exhibited? Where's the humility in falsely (and, inevitably, temporarily) inflating the self esteem of kids that haven't shown the same drive, but are now getting the same praise?
shows extraordinary social intelligence
Which means what, exactly? That he's a quick study when it comes to what seems to go over well among the adults in his academic life? That he's acutely aware of which platitudes will be received with smiles, and cause little friction? Yes, that's handy. But it's also a fundamental part of what holds so many average kids back from being excellent in anything. When all they hear from kids who should be role models is that they are already just as smart as the junior astrophysicist, then what's the point of getting to the bottom of the work ethic, discipline, and drive of such a student, and emulating it? No need! We're all already just as smart as him, in our own way! OMG!Let's go fire up WoW!
You know what's not typical nowadays? Modesty, honesty, and respect.
So, let's see, here...
Modesty? You want everyone, at every level of capability or regardless of how much work they've put into what they do, to be considered equal? You think that kids should receive accolades for showing up, rather than for busting their asses and actually doing something? You think that the kids who do nothing but Wii all day should be held in the same esteem as a kid who racks up a degree in astrophysics by age eleven? This isn't about the kid with the brains and dedication, you idiot. It's about all of the average or sub-average kids who are being told the lie that they are already just as smart as he is. Which does nothing but distort their view of the world, and undermine any sense of urgency they might have to better themselves and get ready for real work in their lives - the better to be able to take it all in stride and thrive. It's not about the eleven year old graduate's modesty or lack of it. It's about the vaporware foundation for the self esteem that all of his lazier counterparts are being propped up on (only to come crashing down, later).
Honesty? Do you really think it's honest to tell all of this hard working kid's peers that they're all just as smart as he is? To diminish what he's done by telling all of those kids that hard, difficult work really doesn't matter and that everyone is the same... and that everyone should get the same outcome in their lives regardless of whether they hustle and study and work hard and focus, or not? Is that honestly how you think the world should be? Everyone gets the same of everything, no matter how hard they're willing to work, how well they teach themselves to focus on a task, and no matter how inspired they are, compared to everyone else?
Respect? Yeah, I can tell you have a lot of respect for the kid that did the hard work, here. You want to make sure that nobody else feels bad for not, themselves having a degree in astrophysics at eleven years old. I suppose that your own way of showing respect would be to now give those out to all of the other eleven year olds in the neighborhood, so none of them feel bad about having no idea what such a degree even represents? Way to respect the other eleven year olds, there. Make sure they go into life completely confused about what gets them from point A to point B. Disarm them of any critical thinking skills. Very respectful of you.
And for you to call him shallow because he appreciates that and is modest is - well, you said it best - Shallow
What I'm really complaining about is that, despite his obvious high wattage, his teachers (and parents, obviously) have trained him to spout the "everyone is equally special" mantra, and that he - understandibly - doesn't have the backbone or urge to be as insightful and frank about his social observations as he is about astrophysics. You want modesty? What he should be doing is preaching hard work as the path to achievement, not blowing smoke about how inately smart everyone is, just like him, because that's what the adults in his life have given him to say.
True modesty would be shown in his ability to inspire lack-of-blowhardedness in other people. Instead, he's telling everyone that they're all as smart as an 11 year old astrophysicist. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that he has to either push fake self esteem for everyone else to savor, or be an arrogant ass. It's possible to be appropriately humble and to remind people that they don't all get a gold star for breathing.
missives...the word you were looking for was missives
omg u r 2 smart!!!
Actually, that was the word I was looking for. You win!
Didn't your mother ever teach you never to pass on an opportunity to alliterate?
... um ... stuff.
My mother made me master multi-syllabic meta-mutterings merely to modify my meandering mental malapropisms and to manipulate my meager mix of mangled messages into a more magnificent maelstrom of mightily meaningful
wise enough not to flaunt it
He's not flaunting it (gee, other than getting press coverage about having a degree in astrophysics at the age of eleven!). But what he is doing is blowing a bunch of smoke of the asses of everyone who doesn't work that hard and apply themselves. "It's OK! You're all smart!"
Appreciating others' skills doesn't make it impossible to recognise your own . . .
But being unable to differentiate between varying levels of insight, discipline, practiced skills, quick-wittedness and such, or being unwilling to admit that you can tell the difference - that doesn't say much for the ol' critical thinking skills, or for how much one values honesty. Telling every under achieving glue sniffer that he's just as smart - in his own way, of course - as an 11 year old with a degree in astrophysics is... a big, fat, culturally corrisive lie. And telling the kid who could become a well polished beacon of reason once he matures a bit and learns to apply himself that, never mind, in his own way he's already just as smart as the kid in question? That's poisoning the well.
Maybe the super-duper evil genius is seeking out dozens of these smart kids in advance, hoping to create enough evil geniuses to serve as cannon fodder ...
... and for them to serve as a distraction for when he puts his ultimate plan for world domination into motion.
Well, there is, actually. And he's well on his way to collecting his team of subordinate evil geniuses. Unfortunately, some don't make the team because of a high rate of IRS/tax-related difficulties that show up during the nomination process, so he's still got a bunch of empty slots to fill.
It's called "the stimulus package," and no comic book writer could possibly invent something more insidious, more full of plot twists, and more likely to produce spectacular unintended consequences.
"I don't consider myself a genius because there are 6.5 billion people in this world and each one is smart in his or her own way." That's a very special comment right there.
It's also an incredibly shallow triumph of an Olympic grade platitudinous pandering politically correct aphorism. The kid's teacher says he can "see right through the complications," but he's still been brainwashed into thinking that he's not unusual. What a shame. And how typical.
Because profit is more important than human lives.
No, because a hospital that is bankrupt can't save any human lives.