[Krow]

This may or may not be the most appropriate forum for this discussion, but for most of my life I have more or less observed a certain mentality which is somewhat prevalent among many individuals in numerous societies. This phenomenon is especially apparent in the attitude towards prodigies, but it also reflects a wide-scale attitude towards various accomplished individuals. Essentially, these individuals are often exalted intrinsically. While most people will respect the accomplishments of a prodigy, the difference in the respect between people exists largely within two categories: Those who respect the child for the dedication that the child underwent in mastering a talent and those who value the child upon an outlook of perceived superiority. The problem that I have is with the latter, where these children are often idolized, and others may be neglected in the process.

To further elaborate, these children may receive abnormal amounts of praise, fame, encouragement, and resources in response to their talents. I have even seen individuals who have lost quite a lot of self confidence in witnessing a younger individual with a greater amount of talent in a particular field. Additionally, I have seen individuals who have anonymously stated that such individuals are "superior" to the rest of the population, upon the fact that they are exceptional in one particular field of interest. It seems to cross the line between what they perceive as an idol and what they perceive as a legitimate child, and it is almost dehumanizing. I myself have never actually been a "prodigy" in any regard, but in grade school, I did score well above average on numerous tests and within my classes. As a result, the children who did score above a given range were granted special access to a program (third to throughout fifth grade) for "gifted" students, where we would engage in exercises revolving around logical reasoning, including debate, algebra, robotics, and logic puzzles. The program was remarkably useful in refining these skills, but the children who scored below a given range were never provided this opportunity.

A rather large group of children never received the same opportunity as those who scored above a specific range, so they were denied the resources to further refine their logical reasoning. In fact, this sort of material never actually returned throughout our education, so these students really did not ever receive the chance to learn just this. They did not simply acknowledge that these students were slower to catch on, providing them the opportunity once they were better prepared. Instead, they were simply left behind altogether. These were average students, who shared the same potential as the students who were "above average". However, either due to the fact that they simply learned at a slightly slower pace or due to the fact that their parental involvement in their education might have been slightly less, they may never perceive themselves as anything but "average".

Contrary to the "prodigies", special education students often receive two common reactions: Pity or disdain. Of course, plenty of people treat them as anyone else, but oftentimes, people will act overly compassionate or overly harsh to these children. It really depends on the individual, but both tend to be a common reaction. Most people will probably agree that any special education student does require more involvement than most students, and most would also agree that they certainly deserve a chance. Oftentimes, the "average" students are the ones who receive the least encouragement, and teachers often exhibit clear preferences for students with exceptional talent within their subject. About any parent wishes for their child to perform at the top of their class or hobby, which is understandable, but in some competitive societies, this leads to great distress for the younger population. Some regions such as Japan and South Korea experience high rates of suicide among adolescents, where educational competitive standards are at their highest.

This is a problem which affects children immediately, but I have reason to believe that it has shaped a great deal of our society. Colleges value standardize testing upon acceptance, and scholarships revolve around the same standards. Organizations such as Mensa exist for the sole purpose of bragging rights. Others without any conspicuous talents of great magnitude often act submissive, possessing rather low self esteem. It is almost as though a certain sector of society has effected a hierarchy of inherent worth among people -- worth derived largely from base value. "Base value" describes merely a beginning level of talent in a particular field, but it does not describe the ability to master it. In fact, in high school, I struggled greatly within an AP physics course, which was a combination of mathematical theory and conceptual science. Later on in college, with the previous experience in physics, I performed remarkably well in the subject. Yet when I assisted other students in the subject, who never had experience in the subject, they automatically assumed that I was merely "smarter" than they were. This was not true at all, as I already possessed a fair foundation in the subject. More than anything, my ability to perform so well in the material stemmed from my prior practice which built that particular skill.

Among some people, I have noticed a distinct desire to claim superiority over others. However, talent is not an almighty hierarchy. It is more similar to rock, paper, scissors, where individuals' talents will triumph or fail in certain categories. These talents are not stagnant either, and no matter the base value of their talent, one may master a talent given the dedication. What matters is not where one begins, rather, where one is going. Whether or not one learns quickly or slowly is irrelevant as mastery requires immense practice, focus, and passion, and that ability is achievable in the end. A prodigy is not a superhuman; they are a young individual who has mastered a talent in the span of their life. What they should be respected for is precisely that dedication, not a subjective assumption of "superiority" as a human being. This hierarchical standard simply manifests a self-fulfilling prophecy in the young, and this risks carrying into the individual's adulthood. Instead of forcing our children to constantly compare among one other in a competitive environment, they ought to be measured against themselves in a frame for self improvement. Of course, I am not dismissing the value of competition, but competition should exist for the purpose of greater challenge for the individual, not for the purpose of validating one's self worth (which people attempt to do for some reason).

Something incredibly innocent and fantastic -- the talent of a young child -- really hints at an underlying problem which plagues many civilizations. So many individuals suffer from great distress brought about by low self esteem, yet there is no human being which is objectively superior to the next. No individual on this planet exceeds another in every single talent, thought, or hobby. People are simply too complex to categorize by mere numbers, yet this insistence upon hierarchical value still exists. What matters is what people actually have achieved, what they have learned, and where they are going with their practices. No student should have ever been denied the educational opportunities that we were provided as children, as they were perfectly capable of learning it eventually. Despite this, these hierarchies are commonly accepted as absolute truth within educational environments, and they are not likely to change until these influences come from within.

My observations are anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt, but as I have seen it countless times before, I do believe them to be a relatively valid reflection of the thoughts of many people. Aside from that, anyone else is free to add their thoughts.

You are absolutely correct in your observation about unequal opportunity.

I could not offer my children the same opportunities as their peers. No hockey, no art school, no music lessons, no tutors... They are adults now yet I still feel enormously guilty that I was unable to afford them the chance to pursue their dreams and talents. Meanwhile it irritates me to no end to hear their peers parents go on and on about their own children's successes - successes owed in a large part to economic resources.