@superdrummer said:
Sorry for the pessimistic attitude, but someone has to say it.
Sorry, but not everyone can do anything. Period.
If you are paralyzed you can't function as a firefighter. If you are blind you can't be a sniper. If you're a 5'1 and 100lbs, you can't be in the NFL. If you have extreme anxiety and can't handle pressure, stay out of the ER.
Why am I saying this? In this article I found, it states "People with Down syndrome can do anything. They just do it at their own pace".
No. They can't. I am sorry, but no matter what society wants, they can't.
They won't understand quantum mechanics, they won't write a literary masterpiece, they won't have the wrist control to play a difficult four mallet marimba piece, they won't become an Olympic sprinter without having their own division, they just can't. It is no different than the paralyzed firefighter or the blind sniper. They simply can't.
And why is this some taboo-voodooish idea? We know they can't. We know not everyone is equal. We know it the first time we join a little league football team and see that kid who is infinitely better than us, we know there are people who just get things others study for months to somewhat wrap their heads around. Not everyone is equal, life isn't fair.
If we drill that people can do whatever they want, people will walk away from things they are good at and things that are useful. Just because you can't have your first choice of a career doesn't mean you can't find one that fits your skill set and can be extremely fulfilling.
Thoughts? Did I offend anyone too much?
I think it depends on the situation. There are very few people who can understand quantum mechanics; because very few people understand quantum mechanics, very few people know how to teach it so that people can start to understand quantum mechanics; because so few people know how to teach quantum mechanics, usually, you just learn the equations and how to solve them, given a word problem; in other wards, how to do the math, whether than what you're actually doing relative to the concepts you're being taught. As such, while I'm a scientists, I'm probably not a very good mathematician, even though I aced the math courses required to get me through my chemistry and physics courses. I found out that I'm probably not a mathematician, when I got up to the very high level math courses, when pursuing a mechanical engineering degree, although it was the factor that I was not keeping up with my homework assignments and class at the time. For example, while I understood math up to algebra and pre-calculus math, I basically had a gift to memorize calculus functions, even though I apparently didn't actually fully understand what I was doing when I did an integral or derivative; for example, I understood that the derivative of x^2 was x or 1/2x and the integral of x^2 was x^3 or 1/3x^3 (I'm going off a quick memory for purposes of examples, but I'd immediately remember, if I looked it), but, apparently, I didn't know all of the aspects into coming up with the x from x^2 or x^3 from x^2; but, while it was only important to understand that bit to solve a physics problem, you need more to understand how to solve an even higher level math problem. Thus, after I got through my calculus courses, my actual ability to be able to easily solve math problems began to fade when I got to my linear algebra course and my differential equations course; but, I absolutely loved getting through my modern physics course, quantum mechanics course, and mathematics of chemistry and physics course; same with my physical chemistry course; but, in pursuing math, I ran into a road block when I was trying to further understand math to get through my Greens Theorem in a plane and Stokes Theorem course, so that I could get to my Fluid Dynamics course for mechanical engineering, or Tensor Analysis, so that I could go into general relativity in graduate level physics; however, I know solving general relativity problems would probably better help me to understand Tensor Analysis than coming at it through trying to understand Stokes Theorem.
However, I think I understand people who pick up on concepts a bit more slowly. I don't think you should give up on a slow person, as if they'd never be able to understand something; I don't think it's wise to treat a person the same way you would treat a chimpanzee. I think it takes patience and a skilled teacher. As such, I don't think it would be so hopeless to try to teach someone with Down Syndrome how to do math, science, law, or something else, just like other people; for example, you're probably not ever going to get someone skilled in learning from a literature perspective to skillfully learn physics or math, just like you're not going to get someone skilled in physics or math skilled with learning from a literature perspective, and it has nothing to do with a person having Down Syndrome. I think it's more a thing with how society has developed. For some reason, the idea is that because you may not have been able to pass a test that was timed, than you couldn't pass the test; while some people may be able to finish the 60 question test in 60 minutes with relative ease, some people may be able to pass it in 90 minutes, 120 minutes, etc; working quickly is designed to keep up in a high production environment like a Boeing Factory; but, if you are a person that need 90 minutes instead of 60 minutes to pass that physics test, than you might be better at the current version of NASA, where you don't need to be in a high pace environment to apply your knowledge. I'm like that: I can pass that test, but I may need 90 minutes to pass instead of the 60 minutes; I'd probably work better as a University research member than I would work in a high pressure production environment; at a far more extreme level, this may be the case for someone with Down Syndrome; however, even though it might take that Down Syndrome person 900 minutes to pass that 60 question test, that is meant to be passed in 60 minutes, just suppose how innovative that person might be, if allowed to showcase his talents at his own pace; this person may actually have been the key to curing cancer, but, because he's not being allowed to showcase his talents, he's given up on as educationally invalid, and we'll have to wait several more decades to centuries until we get that cure for cancer; innovation is being stifled, simply because of how the system is structure in that you're given more opportunities the quicker you can solve problems; during the 1960s, I don't think those NASA scientists had to worry about a tightly timed test to eventually build the rockets required to go to the moon.
Log in to comment