Of course, anyone who studies learning knows that the Bayesian prior with which a student approaches new experiences (his “prejudices”) is partially innate and partially learned. What you are really asserting is that there is no significant variation in the innate portion between students. This is false.
Now, this is not to say your title isn’t true. It may indeed be the case that students who believe their Bayesian prior is innate are less motivated to learn new ways of learning. And, indeed, it may be good pedagogy to temporarily mislead children to believe that they are all innately equal — just as one might use any fairy tale for a good purpose. But if the teachers — or more importantly — _researchers_ in learning tell _themselves_ such fairly tales they damage children by not finding the best ways to help various children, despite the fact that those children possess innate structures not conforming to the preferred fairy tale du jour.
Thanks for your comment. I do not think I wrote or thought that there is no significant variation in the innate abilities. Some people have deficient brains, there is no question about it.
What I am saying is that if I assume that boxing is an innate skill, that you have it or you don’t, I am less likely to improve my boxing skills.
This being said, where is the evidence that there is significant variation in the innate mental abilities of most students attending a given undergraduate program, variations significant enough that they cannot be overshadowed by motivation and hard work?
You see, provably, all computer are equivalent computationally. From a Computer Science perspective, there are only two factors that can differentiate two computers: speed and memory. If brains are different, I’d like to know about it!
Of course, anyone who studies learning knows that the Bayesian prior with which a student approaches new experiences (his “prejudices”) is partially innate and partially learned. What you are really asserting is that there is no significant variation in the innate portion between students. This is false.
Now, this is not to say your title isn’t true. It may indeed be the case that students who believe their Bayesian prior is innate are less motivated to learn new ways of learning. And, indeed, it may be good pedagogy to temporarily mislead children to believe that they are all innately equal — just as one might use any fairy tale for a good purpose. But if the teachers — or more importantly — _researchers_ in learning tell _themselves_ such fairly tales they damage children by not finding the best ways to help various children, despite the fact that those children possess innate structures not conforming to the preferred fairy tale du jour.
Thanks for your comment. I do not think I wrote or thought that there is no significant variation in the innate abilities. Some people have deficient brains, there is no question about it.
What I am saying is that if I assume that boxing is an innate skill, that you have it or you don’t, I am less likely to improve my boxing skills.
This being said, where is the evidence that there is significant variation in the innate mental abilities of most students attending a given undergraduate program, variations significant enough that they cannot be overshadowed by motivation and hard work?
You see, provably, all computer are equivalent computationally. From a Computer Science perspective, there are only two factors that can differentiate two computers: speed and memory. If brains are different, I’d like to know about it!