Might be an unpopular take but… maybe being good at high school math tests is not really such an important gift in the real world.
I’d say the real world doesn’t reward being actually gifted.
School rewards obedience and memorization. If you’re aggressively mediocre, but sufficiently agreeable and willing/able to memorize a bunch of bullshit, chances are, you’ll get pretty good grades. I know several people with very good grades who are simply not very intelligent.
Universities also reward memorization. If you’re good at learning facts and writing bullshit like the prof wants to read it, chances are, you’ll get good grades in at least some areas (business, psychology , medicine, and as a CS graduate, even CS to a frighteningly high degree).
If you’re gifted (like I’m actually certified to be, whatever that means), you’re often bored at school, you won’t learn because you don’t really need to, and you don’t really want to play ball with all the bullshit. You can see through it, and especially for teenagers, that’s extremely frustrating.
In the “real world” being gifted isn’t really a huge benefit either. I’m good at what I’m doing and what’s the result? I’m now de facto managing other people at doing what I’m good at. I can’t complain, cushy job, very good pay. But a literal monkey could do 70% of my tasks. I’m inside a corporate cage, that I realistically can’t escape from.
And I think that’s where many of the “gifted, but neither genius nor psychopath” people are at. Overqualified for what they’re doing, but caught in a system where they can’t really excel in the ways they could.
As someone also measured as gifted and put in gifted classes, there was an interesting discussion that I had with one of the teachers about how the views for approaching gifted education was changing.
For a lot of schools, the “gifted” students are gifts; you don’t have to spend time on their education and they may end up helping the classes they are in. So, it is ok to treat them like normal kids and they won’t become a problem.
However, studies have shown that to be really bad for the “gifted” students. You get a lot of underperforming students who don’t engage with the material as it is mentally underwhelming. Soft skills that they were supposed to learn were never developed because they never had to. You even had issues with developing social skills as the distance in standard deviations between gifted and normal children are the same as between a normal kid and a “special education” kid.
The findings were showing you had to treat the “gifted” students with the same care as those in “special education” as the common teaching techniques don’t work, issues are much more varied between children, and being able to lean on talent in some cases leads to skills not being learned because they never needed to be.
Sounds like you were kept with the normal kids.
No, I was actually in a class specifically for gifted children.
However, this was over 20 years ago and back then, this was a relatively new concept in my region. That meant the class had to be padded with “regulars” and the special treatment we got, was rather limited. Looking back, it seemed like they dropped the idea almost completely after 9th grade or so.
And even today I’m pretty sure there’s no comprehensive testing going on. So a ton of smart children get labelled as having ADHD or just as delinquents if they’re from a “bad” background.
Funny thing is, Germany actually did have a three tiered school system for decades, where after elementary the children were separated by “performance”, but since this country is laughably bad at creating equal opportunities, this de facto became a class filter. Parents are academics? Off to the Gymnasium with you! Parents are poor/migrants? Well, Hauptschule will have to do. Good luck at being underemployed for life.
How do you know that what you consider “literal monkey could do it” is not something many other people struggle with?
As a kid i struggled a lot understanding, why people didn’t get the math we dealt with in high school, but i lacked behind in languages, not getting that you have to study for them and can’t just “get” them like with math.
“the real world” isn’t a thing.
There’s no such monolith. Different jobs reward different gifts. The challenge is finding one for your own.
I’d say the real world doesn’t reward being actually gifted.
More accurately, the real world punishes being below average at any one of like a dozen skillets. You can’t min/max your stats because being 99th percentile at something won’t make up for being 30th percentile at something else. Better to be 75th percentile at both.
The real world requires cross-disciplinary coordination, which means thriving requires both soft skills and multiple hard skills.
If we cut all the “Iam very smort”- humblebrags out, what we’re left with is kind of a shit take in my oppinion. You say you were gifted, but not gifted enough to game the system, nor smart enough to realize that in order to succeed academically, the skills you should have been honing were infact memorization and communication skills?
You kind of sound like you’ve got an inflated ego. You might think society screwed you over and now you’re a wageslave, but more than likely you landed exactly where you belong. I’ve listened to enough upper-middle-management powerlarping to know that 2/3 of cushy office job management shares your delusion.
I’m not saying that anything about the premise is wrong, I have intimate experience with the downsides of being differently-abled compared to your peers. Turned into a youth delinquent for a payday earlier than most people have their first sip of beer etc. but still got an academic education, as well as a vocation (nurse), because I realized quite soon that I just can’t take people with this kind of mindset that you clearly have, where you belittle people who have different skills and aptitudes than yourself.
I saw more than enough of the corpo mindset that come with a suite, designer briefcase and S- class Merc to know to steer fucking clear of that life.
Basically an extended IQ test, back then this was done at the local university, probably by some psychologist.
I’m not entirely sure in how far these tests have changed over time and how different they are from adult IQ tests. I definitely remember a longer interview with someone, which isn’t part of a regular test, I think.
I don’t know how it is in other countries, but Spanish high school math competitions are designed to test both logic and creativity. They’ll require you to use the material from your current year, but the way in which you have to apply that math isn’t obvious if your only competency in math is specifically passing high school tests. You don’t get a good score by being a proficient human calculator, but by applying good abstract analysis, which you should be able to apply in other areas of your life.
Kind of off topic but some people are really bad at writing jira tickets.
“Show the user a list of projects [eof]”
Ok but like, only their projects, right? Do they need to be ordered? Searchable? Paginated? Only active ones or soft deleted ones, too? Do you just need the name or do you need metadata too?
Somehow product doesn’t love my stance of “if it’s not on the ticket or in a sop, the behavior is undefined and you get what you get” stance.
Dealing with this at the moment - in an org that’s been pretty lax at writing anything down about what and why as far as internal software goes, trying (with support from C-suite) to get people to actually write up any amount of detail in their requests is like pulling teeth.
I tend to take that position as well; if it’s not defined, I get to define it. If I ask for feedback or review and get silence, that means you approve.
The problem is that requirements refinement has been unceremoniously dumped in your lap. The failure here is organizational; maybe you have a design person involved, maybe devs are expected to do this. Either way, your job now also includes communications.
One strategy I’ve used is to draw a low-fi example of what they’re going to get - Figma is great at this these days. Then I add it to the issue and push the whole thing back for early approval in order to suss out these finer points.
Not to come off as misanthropic here, but many people are hot garbage at describing what’s in their head. Most of the time, it’s all abstract concepts up there until you start asking the real questions. They really do need a whole-ass conversation to sharpen that mental image. Or in this case, what they want that feature to look like. Incidentally, this is also the reason why therapy is a thing, and why it takes people years to make sense of themselves, and that outcome is usually far more crucial than anything we’re doing at the keyboard.
If it’s someone else’s job to design things, then that’s a pretty terrible specification. But depending on your role, it’s common enough for there to be one person who designs and builds a feature like “User projects dashboard”, and the job is to decide what’s important based on the product. Especially with smaller companies.
Reminds me of this gem: https://lizengland.com/blog/2014/04/the-door-problem/
The amount of human ingenuity that’s wasted on shit like figuring out how to make more intrusive ads, that could’ve instead been used to advance humanity is one of the biggest tragedies of capitalism.
The most creative artistic minds of today, are probably working on advertisement.
Plagiarizing my autobiography, I see
