[quote]anonym wrote:
If we start letting little kids train at what they are interested in, before you know it, we will have a nation with a ridiculous surplus of cowboys, astronauts, pirates, and princesses.[/quote]
No, we would have a nation such as we have now. Full of video game players. Which is kind of how they did it in the book. At least at first.
Ender was a bod mofo. A six year old who had killed two people bare handed.
[quote]anonym wrote:
If we start letting little kids train at what they are interested in, before you know it, we will have a nation with a ridiculous surplus of cowboys, astronauts, pirates, and princesses.[/quote]
which would be absolutely awesome
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
That wasn’t selective breeding though, at least not in the ordinary sense. His parents were not selected to be put together, or at least I don’t think they were.[/quote]
I know you had no way of knowing unless your a Card addict like me but in OSC’s book " First Meetings" Card reveals that Ender’s parents were in fact selected and paired in a freakish/romantic kind of way by the International Fleet.[/quote]
Ah, well there we have it then. SteelyD was more right than he knew (it seems) and certainly more right than I knew.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Would soldiers be better if they started training in middle school? Would investment bankers be more successful if focused solely on market related learning at the beginning of high-school?[/quote]
Soldiers yes, investment bankers not necessarily.
The role of an infantry grunt is pretty specialised in comparison to a banker or engineer.
Jobs that require knowledge on a broader spectrum would not benefit much from the kind of specialisation you describe.
One can also make the argument that innovation would generally suffer with specialisation at such an early age.
Another issue to consider is the obvious moral one. Personally I find it inhumane to delegate roles in society to individuals. That said, it would probably make society run more efficiently, ant colony style.
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
I am all for agreeing on specialized training. Its not for everyone. Some one has to pick up the trash, be a janitor or other not as savory jobs. So I vote that only the top 10% of the children get the training. All these ‘genius’ children have their parents consent to give them the training.
[/quote]
This more along the lines that interested me. As always there are going to be children that don’t know what they want to be, or have a choice that is somewhat unreasonable (princess, cowboy as mentioned above), and would be best suited for a more broad spectrum learning experience. But for those that do test extremely high, and display a strong passion for a specific pursuit, I think specialized schooling, as is the case in Ender’s Game, makes complete sense.
Also, what if the companies, military divisions, or cooperation’s are the ones that are paying for/running the training? as is the case in Ender’s Game and in most current military training. Do you think companies would put more time and effort into the selection process?
I think the idea that we would become insect like is a little ridiculous, doctors go through 8-10 years of specialized training and don’t come out acting or functioning like robots, and there are people that work assembly lines all day and still carry personalities.
Ultimately I just feel like much of the learning that is done in high school and college is seldom used, and that the education process might function better if it carried a stronger direct link to your future profession or career.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
One can also make the argument that innovation would generally suffer with specialization at such an early age.[/quote]
I would argue against this, as the opposite is true in Ender’s Game. If a student is completely submerged in a focused area, or single pursuit, than the chances of innovation are far greater as a result of their mind being constantly challenged by that single focus.
Ender is forced to continually observe battles, play battle games, and be a part of the battle group social process. As a result of this, he continually develops dominant new strategies, new solutions, and new practices to construct his army.
Look at the soviets. They were hugely successful in everything because so many were specialized. Look what they did for science and sport.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s right to do it to the kids, and force it on them.
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
So I want to say that I have read nearly all of OSC’s book. Many of which I have had to buy on my own because I could not get my hands on a copy in a library. The Ender series and the parallel ‘Shadow’ series about ‘Bean’ one of Ender’s Jeesh was superb.
I am all for agreeing on specialized training. Its not for everyone. Some one has to pick up the trash, be a janitor or other not as savory jobs. So I vote that only the top 10% of the children get the training. All these ‘genius’ children have their parents consent to give them the training.
[/quote]
But who decides who that “top 10%” is? And how? Testing? Lottery? Monetary gifts?
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Ultimately I just feel like much of the learning that is done in high school and college is seldom used, and that the education process might function better if it carried a stronger direct link to your future profession or career.[/quote]
Agreed. Even in college pursuing a specific degree, you get all kinds of “filler” classes with no real correlation to one’s future profession.
My pet peeve is how they approach foreign languages in school. They focus way to much on grammar; talking ABOUT the target language and how it’s built up. Then you come out of school after 3 years of German or whatever, having done reasonably well on tests, but unable to understand a German native unless they speak real slow and simple.
You are much better off learning language on your own than in a class. But then again that goes for pretty much everything.
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
If we start letting little kids train at what they are interested in, before you know it, we will have a nation with a ridiculous surplus of cowboys, astronauts, pirates, and princesses.[/quote]
The idea in OSC’s novels is that every child on earth is tested to find out if they have command potential. If this idea were to be brought forth realistically, what we would see is all children taking advanced testing to determine I.Q. and find other info on what the kids are good at. Courage, loyalty, and adaptability would all be measured. Then at different ages for different I.Q.'s we can begin providing the children with a more specialized education to point them in the right path if not set them right on the major highway to their profession. [/quote]
If you have read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers he talks about IQ testing and its downfalls. He gives the example of Robert Oppenheimer (director of the Manhattan Project) and the guy who was on 1 vs. 100, Chris Lang I think, who had an IQ over 200. They both had high IQs but at a cerain point a high IQ did not equate into more success in the world. You just had to meet the threshold for IQ. He referenced the study with the “Termites” which was a long term study to see what the most “gifted” children ended up doing in life. The results were rather disappointing to the professor Terman. Of his subjects no more became more “successful” than any other percentage of the population.
Sorry if that was rambling or a jumble of facts, its been a few months since I read the book. If you have read it, which I recommend you will understand 
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
Look at the soviets. They were hugely successful in everything because so many were specialized. Look what they did for science and sport.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s right to do it to the kids, and force it on them.[/quote]
I know many a 30-something guy who would have been much better off if he was pushed a little to make something of himself when he was younger. I think specialization should begin at a much younger age than it does now. Say at 12-13 years of age.
We’re going off-topic here though.
going back to the orignial question about training at a young age… I think it would be a horrid idea… you would learn so much about a very small area you would likely become routed in the “norm” and having even more trouble seeing outside the box then most people already do. Not to mention that at this point in technology being multi-disciplined helps a lot with innovation…
just my 0.02
-ratchet-
From what I gathered while reading the novel, the whole point of training the kids and specializing them at such an early age was to get them battle-ready as soon as possible. They did not have the luxury of time on their hands and needed soldiers right away to fight an enemy that was vast in numbers.
That being said, in some countries you have the option out of middle school (ages 13-15) to pursue either technical school (for some kind of trade or specialized skill) or academic school, depending on your grades and interests.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I think the idea that we would become insect like is a little ridiculous, doctors go through 8-10 years of specialized training and don’t come out acting or functioning like robots, [/quote]
Not an example helpful to your argument IMO, as a troublingly large percentage of doctors do “think” rather robotically, simply doing the same as they saw other doctors do while they were residents or were required themselves to do, and the same as the pharmaceutical company reps that visit them tell them to do.
[quote]GusBus07 wrote:
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
If we start letting little kids train at what they are interested in, before you know it, we will have a nation with a ridiculous surplus of cowboys, astronauts, pirates, and princesses.[/quote]
The idea in OSC’s novels is that every child on earth is tested to find out if they have command potential. If this idea were to be brought forth realistically, what we would see is all children taking advanced testing to determine I.Q. and find other info on what the kids are good at. Courage, loyalty, and adaptability would all be measured. Then at different ages for different I.Q.'s we can begin providing the children with a more specialized education to point them in the right path if not set them right on the major highway to their profession. [/quote]
If you have read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers he talks about IQ testing and its downfalls. He gives the example of Robert Oppenheimer (director of the Manhattan Project) and the guy who was on 1 vs. 100, Chris Lang I think, who had an IQ over 200. They both had high IQs but at a cerain point a high IQ did not equate into more success in the world. You just had to meet the threshold for IQ. [/quote]
This is a great point in that it is actually very relevant to the book. Bean is in fact much smarter than Ender but Ender is ultimately chosen to lead the fleet precisely because he is “smart enough” and has other qualities that make him superior to Bean.
I think another interesting theme of the book are the sacrifices (both literal and moral) that humanity is willing to make when threatened.
Right now in war we avoid targeting civilians, have various codes of conduct etc. but if history is any indication, those all get thrown out the window when faced with a genuine threat.
Its interesting that in the book, society only starts to care about the abuse the kids went through and Ender’s “war crimes” after the humans are victorious.
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
going back to the orignial question about training at a young age… I think it would be a horrid idea… you would learn so much about a very small area you would likely become routed in the “norm” and having even more trouble seeing outside the box then most people already do. Not to mention that at this point in technology being multi-disciplined helps a lot with innovation…
just my 0.02
-ratchet-[/quote]
I guess I just disagree with this reasoning. I do think that one should follow a more general schooling path until at least their early teenage years, but if at that age they have developed a strong passion for a certain field, or display a supreme talent in a certain study, than a more focused, more efficient manner of training seem like the better option.
Just because an individual focuses on a very specific topic does not mean that they will not learn the more broader of life’s lessons. No matter what type of school you attend, you will still deal with the trails and tribulations that make humans human.
Obviously there are pitfalls in such an idea, and I am posing it only out of curiosity sparked by the practices in Ender’s Game, and by the seemingly large amount of information that I learned in college that is now seldom used. Additionally, there are also professions that are far better suited for such specialization, such as military, medical, law, and science related careers, that already carry extended training periods.
Logically though, I think that if people started focusing on more specific topics at earlier ages, they would gain a much deeper understanding of said topic, thus being able to reason, develop, and advance the field in a much more efficient and effective manner.
A similar parallel can be drawn between something I read on this site regarding bodybuilding and age. A member was quoted as saying that a person who starts at age 40 will simply not be able to put on the same amount of muscle mass as someone who starts when they are 20. There was no scientific evidence to support this, but it seems logical.
I think the same could be said for the brain. If you are forced to reason and solve through more specific, more complex problems centered around a single study, at an early age, than your potential for innovation and progress seems much higher (I not basing this on any scientific background).
Simply stated, I feel that if you start focusing on the complex facets of a single study at an earlier age, you will have a better understanding of that area, and will be better suited to pursue that in a career related fashion.
I’m not much of a book reader, and this series was the first book I remember reading and enjoying.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I think the idea that we would become insect like is a little ridiculous, doctors go through 8-10 years of specialized training and don’t come out acting or functioning like robots, [/quote]
Not an example helpful to your argument IMO, as a troublingly large percentage of doctors do “think” rather robotically, simply doing the same as they saw other doctors do while they were residents or were required themselves to do, and the same as the pharmaceutical company reps that visit them tell them to do.
[/quote]
I do agree with this, as I am currently working in the medical field and spend about 5-7 hours per day in the OR, watching doctors use procedures or technology that is quite antiquated. At the same time, however, there are many doctors that refuse to do this, and innovate at an extremely high level, questioning their studies from every angle, seeking to make every facet better.
Many jobs revolve around mimicking what your predecessors have done or have taught you, and then taking those lessons and adapting them as the world/technology/variables change.
I just simply believe that by focusing on a specific topic at an earlier age, you would be able to gain a far deeper understanding, which could eventually lead to much stronger innovation and advancement of the field.
[quote]power_bulker wrote:
From what I gathered while reading the novel, the whole point of training the kids and specializing them at such an early age was to get them battle-ready as soon as possible. They did not have the luxury of time on their hands and needed soldiers right away to fight an enemy that was vast in numbers.
That being said, in some countries you have the option out of middle school (ages 13-15) to pursue either technical school (for some kind of trade or specialized skill) or academic school, depending on your grades and interests.
[/quote]
I say neh! Battle school existed for several reasons. The International Fleet had already sent an invasion force to every planet the Buggers inhabited. They sent it right after the second invasion. So Ender wasnt even born yet. The constant sence of urgency was due to 2 things. The fleet was approaching the bugger worlds (so your right on that point). Second though, the world was united at this time only to fight the buggers. No wars on earth. Sounds like a good deal to me: Keep a sense of urgency about a bugger invasion by sending all the smart kids to battle school and prevent any wars from starting on earth.