On jealousy and policy

Sometimes I receive a comment post that I just can't post, because I know something that they seem to forget: my children read this blog too. Such posts may not be overtly unpleasant (very, very, few comments are, thankfully), but they may be inappropriate in some way, for a child to read.

One such post recently came from a reader at an Ivy League University in America. They were very careful to point out their Ivy League origin and wrote as if they spoke for the University itself. However, on reading the entire comment, it became clear that they were, in fact, an overseas Singaporean - probably sent overseas to study by their parents. There were three strands to their argumentation each of which was profoundly at odds with the reality of gifted children. I found it remarkable that such thoughts could be found in the mind of someone attending such a prestigious University. I will look at one strand, alone, in this post.

If the essential argument of their comment is extracted and generalized, it could be stated in the following simplified form: "A society should do nothing to help a gifted child succeed, because that gifted child may not do so, in the end, and the money/resources given to them would then be wasted."

I found myself utterly flabbergasted by the essential bovinity of this line of thinking. This person - male or female, I do not know - who originally came from Singapore, placed such a high value on money that they would argue against the expenditure of any of it to help a talent flourish. They would rather that such talents went unsupported so that money could be devoted to other - unstated purposes. Or perhaps, simply hoarded, and not spent at all.

Imagine a world that was run according to this commenters outlook. No gifted child would get appropriate schooling. No gifted child would get opportunities to grow and express themselves. No gifted child would realize the fullness of their talents. Perhaps, too, no gifted child would grow into a productive gifted adult, so hampered were they by their ungiving societies. What would such a world be like? It would be impoverished in every way. It would be a world of lesser culture, lesser science, lesser richness and diversity in every way. Yet, this commenter imagines that their world is a better one - because they don't expend resources on such gifted children. The exact phrase they had used to describe the situation was that money shouldn't be devoted to such children because there was "too high a risk" of them not succeeding. This supposedly educated individual clearly considers it better to waste the talents of all gifted children, than "risk" wasting money on any of them who turn out not to meet expectations.

What could underlie such a viewpoint? I think it likely that jealousy, whether conscious or otherwise, does so. Jealousy at the gifts of such children; jealousy that anything should be done to help them. Something else, too, seems to underpin such thinking: too high a value placed on the hoarding of money and resources, rather than their wise usage.

I have entitled this piece: "On jealousy and policy" for a reason. For I wish you to consider what sort of world would come to be if this jealous, abstemious, short-sighted mindset were to be the policy of a nation. Such a nation would utterly stifle its future growth. It would become a stagnant place where no ideas grew and no-one flourished. It would be a dying culture, a nation without a future. Yet, that viewpoint is held by an educated Singaporean.

If Singapore is to flourish, grow and become a great nation - as it aspires to be - it must guard against this brand of short-sighted foolishness, lest it become a nation that could have been, and nothing more.

Oh, and by the way: if this individua'ls parents held his or her view, then they wouldn't have sent them overseas to study at an Ivy League college - for isn't that "risking" resources that may come to nothing?