Gifted and Talented, or G&T, programs have long been a perennial subject of debate, particularly in New York City, where it has bedeviled mayors for years. Some parents have already washed their hands of the whole G&T business, refusing to participate in what they view as a corrupt system of segregation. But countless others still place significant stock in the G&T designation and what it offers and are comfortable relying on cognitive testing, should it be required, to determine whether a child qualifies. “When your intelligence is the foundation of your self-perception, failing to achieve feels like soul death,” writes Katie Arnold-Ratliff. But if the limited amount of information we have about gifted kids long-term is any indication, most lead, at best, ordinary lives of modest accomplishment. A 35-year study of 677 gifted children found that by age 50, only 12.3 percent had reached a level of “eminence,” defined as “full professors … Fortune 500 executives … judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.” This means 88 percent never did. Arnold-Ratliff digs into the myth of the gifted child, and how our notions of intelligence may be inherently flawed: nymag.visitlink.me/9mc2Wh

Gifted and Talented, or G&T, programs have long been a perennial subject of debate, particularly in New York City, where it has bedeviled mayors for years. Some parents have already washed their hands of the whole G&T business, refusing to participate in what they view as a corrupt system of segregation. But countless others still place significant stock in the G&T designation and what it offers and are comfortable relying on cognitive testing, should it be required, to determine whether a child qualifies. “When your intelligence is the foundation of your self-perception, failing to achieve feels like soul death,” writes Katie Arnold-Ratliff. But if the limited amount of information we have about gifted kids long-term is any indication, most lead, at best, ordinary lives of modest accomplishment. A 35-year study of 677 gifted children found that by age 50, only 12.3 percent had reached a level of “eminence,” defined as “full professors … Fortune 500 executives … judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.” This means 88 percent never did. Arnold-Ratliff digs into the myth of the gifted child, and how our notions of intelligence may be inherently flawed: nymag.visitlink.me/9mc2Wh

Academics write for each other, not for people. Steven Pinker has spent over four decades doing the opposite, and thinks current academic writing is "enormous wasted effort." "There's an awful lot of brilliant work, really smart people in academia. Why are they doing it? Just to entertain each other? Taxpayers pay for it. It should be accessible. Why should I have to read a paragraph five or six times? It gets under my skin when academics devote so much brainpower into the scholarship and then just blow off the essential task of letting the world know what you've done."

Next section sums up the sources of politicized scholarship: 1) rejecting unwelcome views, 2) rejecting "understanding" as the goal of scholarship, and 3) rejecting the very notion of politically independent facts. It largely zeros in on the last source (i.e., relativism).

We are wired for connection. No surprise, remote work increases isolation and worsens mental health, but great to see that documented here. Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health | Science science.org/doi/10.1126/scie…

مرجان ساتراپی درگذشت. او‌ دیروز در خانه خودش جان سپرد. برای دوستان و عزیزانش، مادر مهربانش آرزوی شکیبایی دارم. با دوستی که در ماه‌های اخیر با مرجان زندگی می‌کرد صحبت کردم، گفت دیروز عصر، وقتی از کار به خانه برگشت، دید مرجان نفس نمی‌کشد. #مرجان_ساتراپی