In my GTS1 class, we took a survey on choices and values due to our current unit on ethics. My survey said that I value:
-altruism/compassion/fairness/justice
-religion/spirituality
-financial security/money/status
-courage
-perseverance
I'm not sure how I feel about my results.. I guess I'm just in that kind of mood. I know that I'm all about fairness and justice, I'll stand up against injustice and speak my mind. I suppose that goes along with courage as well. However, I don't think I'm always a courageous person, and I feel that I have a specific comfort zone. I'm also a very religious person, and I hold firm to those things that I've been taught all my life about God and the way we should lead our lives. I want to be financially stable so that I won't have to deal with the stress of debt, I want my future family to have a comfortable life, but I don;t care as much about status. I'm not always a persevering person, I tend to give up.. a lot. So there ya have it.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The Trouble With Geniuses Parts 1 & 2
In my Gifted and Talented Class, we've been reading a great book called Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. It explores the human mind, why some people are socially deemed "smart", and how everything around us has an impact on our lives and intellect.
In chapters 3 & 4, titled The Trouble with Geniuses parts 1 and 2, Gladwell talks mainly about IQ, and whether it truly matters or not when it comes to successfullness. One of his main examples is two men, by the names Chris Langaan and Robert Oppenheimer, two very brilliant men. First of all Chris Langaan has the highest IQ ever recorded, at 195. The average person: 100. Now, can't you just picture him as this brilliant scientist in a lab somewhere discovering the answer to an age old question like "Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?" or "Is there really a God?" Well, he's actually quite different, and to sum up Gladwell's point about him: yes, he's brilliant, but his life experiences and personality have caused him not to be as successful as someone with a much lower IQ. Now, the second man, Robert Oppenheimer didn't have as high an IQ, but his story finishes differently. He had a lesser IQ, yet he became one of the leading scientists to develop the nuclear bomb during WWII.
The main difference between these men is their approach their future, and their background. Langaan came from what some people would call a broken home, while Oppenheimer came from a home that suppoorted and nurtured his intellect. IQ isn't all that matters.
I would say that Chris Langaan is mostly successful based on our class definition: "To be successful is to maintain a balance between financial stability and happiness with self and others and to accomplish the goals you want to achieve." Chris is the owner of a farm, and he may not be swimming in money, but he's not living off of food stamps, and I'd call that financial stability. He says he's happy, and he loves his family. He's also accomplishing his goals, working on a project about proving whether God truly is real or not. He's very successful, maybe not in society's eyes, but in mine.
In chapters 3 & 4, titled The Trouble with Geniuses parts 1 and 2, Gladwell talks mainly about IQ, and whether it truly matters or not when it comes to successfullness. One of his main examples is two men, by the names Chris Langaan and Robert Oppenheimer, two very brilliant men. First of all Chris Langaan has the highest IQ ever recorded, at 195. The average person: 100. Now, can't you just picture him as this brilliant scientist in a lab somewhere discovering the answer to an age old question like "Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?" or "Is there really a God?" Well, he's actually quite different, and to sum up Gladwell's point about him: yes, he's brilliant, but his life experiences and personality have caused him not to be as successful as someone with a much lower IQ. Now, the second man, Robert Oppenheimer didn't have as high an IQ, but his story finishes differently. He had a lesser IQ, yet he became one of the leading scientists to develop the nuclear bomb during WWII.
The main difference between these men is their approach their future, and their background. Langaan came from what some people would call a broken home, while Oppenheimer came from a home that suppoorted and nurtured his intellect. IQ isn't all that matters.
I would say that Chris Langaan is mostly successful based on our class definition: "To be successful is to maintain a balance between financial stability and happiness with self and others and to accomplish the goals you want to achieve." Chris is the owner of a farm, and he may not be swimming in money, but he's not living off of food stamps, and I'd call that financial stability. He says he's happy, and he loves his family. He's also accomplishing his goals, working on a project about proving whether God truly is real or not. He's very successful, maybe not in society's eyes, but in mine.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Accumulative Advantage VS Kindergarten Debate
I've been told that I tend to give diplomatic answers, and I'm pretty sure this would count as one.
First of all, the examples that Malcolm Gladwell gave of accumulative advantage applied to sports, not education. In the article by Sam Wang and Sandra Aadmodt the examples given applied to education but not sports. However, sports is briefly mentioned in Wang and Aadmodt's article, and it supports Gladwell on accumulative advantage in athletics. "As sports-minded parents know, physical maturity allows older children to perform better. Coaches often mistake this ... for natural aptitude and respond by giving the older children ... more opportunities to improve their skills."
I would have to say that I completely agree with Malcolm Gladwell about this in sports, however I disagree with him when it comes to school. My opinion isn't only influenced by the book and article, it also comes from personal experience.
I've had peers which were put into school a year late, and it didn't seem to help. Some children assumed they were held back, I distinctly remember a boy telling my friend "Oh, you were too stupid to start school, right? The school didn't want you." What I'm saying is that delaying school admission also causes bullying. Red-shirted children may be more mature starting school, but the other children aren't.
I agree with several points in the Kindergarten Debate article, including that actually being younger is a benefit. I've always been one of the youngest and smallest, but that made me want to do just as well as the older bigger kids. I wanted to show that size and age don't have to factor into smarts, and I know several other people like this.
So, to sum up, I agree a little with both readings.
First of all, the examples that Malcolm Gladwell gave of accumulative advantage applied to sports, not education. In the article by Sam Wang and Sandra Aadmodt the examples given applied to education but not sports. However, sports is briefly mentioned in Wang and Aadmodt's article, and it supports Gladwell on accumulative advantage in athletics. "As sports-minded parents know, physical maturity allows older children to perform better. Coaches often mistake this ... for natural aptitude and respond by giving the older children ... more opportunities to improve their skills."
I would have to say that I completely agree with Malcolm Gladwell about this in sports, however I disagree with him when it comes to school. My opinion isn't only influenced by the book and article, it also comes from personal experience.
I've had peers which were put into school a year late, and it didn't seem to help. Some children assumed they were held back, I distinctly remember a boy telling my friend "Oh, you were too stupid to start school, right? The school didn't want you." What I'm saying is that delaying school admission also causes bullying. Red-shirted children may be more mature starting school, but the other children aren't.
I agree with several points in the Kindergarten Debate article, including that actually being younger is a benefit. I've always been one of the youngest and smallest, but that made me want to do just as well as the older bigger kids. I wanted to show that size and age don't have to factor into smarts, and I know several other people like this.
So, to sum up, I agree a little with both readings.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Intro.
Hey :) My name's Ashley, and I'm in 9th grade (highschool.. gross). I don't really have an absolute favorite subject in school, it's always changing, but right now its English. I love poetry, writing and reading. I really like learning about lots of different things, but what commes to mind right now is Poetry and Literature. When I'm not at school, I like to sing and dance. Music is one of my most favorite things about the world. I really enjoy performing in musicals and plays and writing my own poetry. My two cats also help keep me entertained :). But when I'm older I think I think it'd be really cool to be a lawyer or a politician, which means I'll really have to work hard.. but hey, I'm only in ninth grade and my life's only beggining I've got plenty of time to dreamup more dreams to chase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)