Why smart kids fail

Why do smart kids fail? This paradox is often poorly understood, because at face value, someone who is smart should have the best changes to succeed. At face value yes. Taken out of context. Taken out of the environment the child grows up in.

Here is the rub, the smart kid has to grow up in a world that is ruled by mediocrity. At best. Often, the lowest common denominator rules. Take classes. Classes are geared to wards the large blop in the middle. The large blop of kids that are doing fine, but not exceptional. And in that class is a kid that is much smarter. What happens to such a kid?

He or she gets bored. Bored to death. Most things are so easy that s/he often has not even to work for it. I remember that I systematically did not make my chemistry homework. Why? Well, the teacher would ask several students to each write the answer of a assignment at the blackboard in front of the class room. Well, if I was one of the 'lucky' ones, I just would take the book, read the assignment while walking to the front and write down the answer, correct of course. Luckily for me, I was not that good with every subject, and I definitely needed to study hard on others which saved me later in life.

Why did it save me? Well, if everything comes really easy, there is one skill you never learn. And that is to put effort in things. Putting effort in things to achieve things is something you have to learn. And if you are really smart, it will take a long time till you encounter something that will require you to put effort in. And till that day comes, life is easy.

But that day comes, sooner or later. For me it came soon, as my dyslexia forced me to put tremendous effort in learning languages. But when it does not come early, or not in sufficient strength, you are doomed.

Once it arrives, many very smart kids can mask the issue with their intelligence. People around them do not notice that they are struggling, because they use all kind of smart tricks to outsmart the world around them. And they can keep doing that for a long time.

Unfortunately, most of these kids eventually encounter something that cannot be done easily or masked. And that is crushing time. Because they are so used to get everything so easy, it easily becomes an ego crushing experience. Used to be able to do things so easy, a failure is not an option. Well, at least they have never learned to deal with failure, because they just haven't experienced those. And if everything else goes well, why not just walk away from it. Ignore it. There are so many things that do go well, it is not really a problem. Most of the time.

But the first failure, and the inability to deal with it set the tone for future encounters. Instead of learning how to put effort in things, they feel crushed and avoid dealing with it. And the first times, it works. And the second time it works. Etcetera. Till? Till the day they encounter something they cannot ignore. That is the day the get stuck. Now knowing how to put effort in things, they are caught like a deer in the headlights. They have no idea how to handle it.

From here is goes rapidly downhill. Things need to be done, but the inability to do them just result in a repeated failure to do what needs to be done. And the smart kid that once soared through life on his or her intelligence crumbles. Each time s/he fails one time more, each time s/he fails, s/he looses a small part of her/himself, of her/his confidence, ofher/his self esteem.

By now, the smart kid has become an insecure, self doubting kid wondering every day why s/he cannot do things easy. And s/he starts avoiding those things s/he doubts s/he can do. This is when the world around her/him starts labelling the kid as lazy, uninterested, dumb. etc. Yes, dumb, because our smart kid is avoiding everything, fearful of failing one again. And so the cycle continues.

It is far more difficult to raise a smart kid than an average kid. In order to succeed, the smart kid needs to learn that not everything comes just like that. And how do you do that? Some schools have special programs for smart kids. Not all programs are good, but with the right approach, these programs can help gifted children. Those are the lucky once, because they learn that they sometimes need to put effort in things. The bigger question is how to help the unlucky once, those that are failing over and over again because they basically haven't learned to deal with disappointments. I do not know that answer yet, but I do know that it will take a lot of effort to teach those kids how to put effort in things.

Judge orders Rekers rectification: He is bisexual

George Rekers wants to go after the various media outlets that reported that he was gay. Well, I think he actually will have a good change that he is awarded a rectification. Unfortunately, I also think it might be worse than not fighting it. Because I think the court-ordered rectification will be something along the line of:

Rectification: Our reporting of the George Rekers case and the male escort was erroneous. Dr. George Rekers is not homosexual, he is bisexual.

Luggage: the latest synonym for the male sexual organ.....

Am I the only one who is wondering what exactly is meant when George Rekers is saying he rented a male prostitute to carry his 'luggage'? Dirty mind immediately remembered a old cartoon I saw years ago of a man coming to the doctors office. "Doctor, I have a problem" Doctor: "Well, let me see it." At which the man opens his coat and a huge dick falls out....


Unfortunately, I cannot find the cartoon back on the internets......

Legal bigamy: The American Way

Yesterday, it dawned to me. You can get legally married to two people in the United States because of DOMA. The scenario is simple:

1. You marry someone of the same sex in one of the states that does recognize them.
2. You move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, so you are officially unmarried.
3. Because you are officially not married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex.
4. Move back to the state that recognizes the same-sex marriage.
   

It is just waiting till three people try this and see if they can get away with it. I guarantee you, it will be a major news item.....

Satire: Rapist Family Therapy

Recently, I thought of a funny skit-like situation. For your enjoyment.

(Courtroom)
Judge: Ma'am, could you please tell the court what happened that faithful evening in the park.

Victim: Thank you Judge. I was walking through the park in the evening with Charlie, my Chihuahua, when this creep came out of the scrub and forced me into the bushes and forced me to have (gulp) .... to have..... to ... (weeping uncontrollably)

Judge: Sex?

Victim nods.

Judge: Ok Sir, what is your story?

Rapist: Well Sir, you know, I was waiting in the bushes for some hot chicks to come by. It is amazing how willingly they want to have sex with me once they have joined me ion the bushes. It is a nice private spot, and the women just love it. Miss (nudges to the victim) there was dressed like she really wanted to have sex in the park.

Judge: Ok, I see. Sounds like you two should talk with a counsellor together to figure out what you two want. I see you back as soon as you have reached agreement on what is mutually acceptable.

Victim: What? No way?

Judge: Ma'am, should I hold you in contempt of court? Would a week of jail help to make you go?

Victim (cowering) O, no your honour? I am sorry.

Rapist: Thank you judge!

(Counsellors office)
Counsellor: Sir, this woman claims you sexually abused her?

Rapist: No, it wasn't rape, she was scarcely dressed, so she wanted sex. That is not sexual abuse?

Victim: What? I did not want to have sex. My goodness, I never have sex with men, they disgust me.

Rapist: See, she is in denial. She just needs some good sex and she will like it all righthy...

(Victim starts crying)

Counsellor: Ok, I get the picture. Do you think we can find a middle ground between the two extreme points of view. What about oral sex, but not penetration with the penis? With that, you both win in part, and that is just the best way.... Don't you agree?

Ex-gay panel discussion in Tallahassee

This evening, I attended a panel discussion titled:

All God's Children: LGBTQ Members of Faith & the Ex-Gay Movement

jointly organized by the Pride (the on campus student version) and Seminole Christian Life, a very conservative christian student body. I have taped the whole conversation, and I am currently making a backup to my webserver so that the file cannot get lost. I will upload the video in sections to YouTube in the coming days. Uploaded to YouTube here Before the panel started, two of the ex-gay members asked me to refrain from making the video, because they were afraid that the message would be distorted by selectively cherry picking pieces of the video. So, I told them that if I would upload the video to YouTube, I would upload it integrally. I personally think the complete video is much more powerful, so that is not an issue. Internally, I was actually quite appalled by it, knowing that the ex-gay movement has a reputation of distorting the information of others.

What follows is my personal impression.

First of all, I think it was incredibly stupid of Pride to provide a platform to these people in the first place. As expected, they deliberately distorted what we know about homosexuality based on scientific research. Two of them claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality, which is bullshit. I know exactly what gene (frutty oops, the political correct version is fruitless) needs to be manipulated to make a male fly court other male flies, or a female fly to court other females. But heck, what can you do once they have made the blunder? Well, document. So, I went to the meeting, with my laptop and web-cam, and recorded the whole discussion.

Ok, the panel consisted of five members. Three representatives were representing the ex-gay movement, Frank Carrasco & Christine Sneeringer, from Exodus and ex-felon and con-artist Arthur Goldberg, from JONAH. The other side was represented by two local clergy, Rev. Mark Byrd of the Gentle Shepherd MCC and Cantor Tanya Greenblatt of Temple Israel.

The evening started with personal introductions by the panel members, and I will provide a short impression of those introductions:

Frank Carrasco
Frank appeared to me as genuine about himself, realizing that he still has feelings for men, but he has chosen Jesus over his own feelings. I think that he in due time will find peace with Jesus and being gay, and that he will follow the many former ex-gay's that have left the ex-gay movement before him.

Christine Sneeringer
Christine is a different story. Based on her story, I am sure that a major reason she found love in the arms of a woman was her abuse past. That happens, and it sucks. I am glad that she has found herself and has realized that she has attractions to men. However, she didn't say whether she still has or not has feelings for woman, but I would not be surprised if she did. She at least still makes blips on the gaydar of at least some of the females in the audience.

Arthur Abba Goldberg
Arthur is an Orthodox Jew, convicted fellon, dis-barred attorney with a criminal record for financial crimes. Spend 18 months in jail. He is still a con-artist based on what I saw of him this evening. Glib and skilled, lies between his teeth. He gave me the creeps, similar to psychopaths I have met.

Rev. Mark Byrd
Mark told us about his journey from being raised in a church that considers the Southern Baptists as too liberal (sic) to finding peace in being gay and Christian. ADDED in response to the first comment: Tried basically the ex-gay path (he was married, has a daughter), was miserable, to the point of being suicidal, till his wife finally told him to be true to his feelings and amicably divorced so he could find peace. You could see his eyes shout fire when the ex-gay people claimed to do no harm.

Cantor Tanya Greenblatt
Tanya is a member of the Reform Judaism branch, heterosexual, married and very open towards gay people. She explained a lot about the context in which the Torah was written, and tackled head on the cherry picking of Bible/Torah verses to proof ones point.

And now about the content of the discussion. I think there were a few good things and the expected and obvious bad things.

A major discussion point was about respect. Especially the ex-gay members stressed this point, and within qualified limits, I agree. I think that if someone chooses Jesus over his or her sexual orientation, that is that persons personal choice, and whether or not we believe it is healthy or not, something we should respect. But as I say, this is within qualified limits. The limit is honesty. Telling your personal story is one thing, distorting the facts is another. For example, Christine claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. Really? No, wilfully distorting important facts results in less respect. If you want respect, you better become honest and stop distorting the facts. And no Christine, NARTH is not a reliable source for that kind of information.

But there is another point that I would like to bring up. And that is the question of change? Basically, can people change their sexual orientation? My answer is neither yes or no, because I think that in rare cases, some people can change their sexual orientation. And those numbers are far less than what the ex-gay movement want you to believe. Also, I suspect that most of those cases are either bisexuals who have a somewhat stronger attraction to individuals of the same sex, or people who have for example experienced trauma or something related. However, most of the people that claim to have been heterosexualized are pretending.

I have far more respect for those in the ex-gay movement who actually honestly say they still have feelings for the members of the same sex, but make an active choice between God and their sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is their own choice.

And that brings me to the next item that I want to address here tonight. Recruiting. This was brought up, and all ex-gay members said they did not recruit. However, nothing was said about youngsters that are singed up for their programs by their parents. O wait, the parents sign the release, so they are not recruited.

And that brings me to the last item to be discussed. Harm. They claimed they did no harm. Whow. The APA disagrees. The survivors disagree.

UPDATE in the morning
Ok, I am going to bed. Tomorrow more.

And let me finish my last thoughts. If you are really interested to do no harm, you only can achieve that when you are honest, and means that you represent the research accurately. When you claim that you can change, but that the research indicates that it is a very rare thing, you give people false hope of a solution that is not there. If you REALLY want to help people without harming them, you say that. You say, we can help you, not with changing your sexual orientation, but with finding a way to deal with your generally unchangeable sexual orientation that is compatible with your believe. For more information about professional standards of helping people, see here.

Sophophora: A Laboratory Handbook

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press has announced the next edition of their best-selling fuitfly handbook: