1) All it takes in some cases is someone with authority, usually a teacher, telling you that you are bad at something to lock that in, especially early in life, when *everything* is potentially hard to learn. You may not even remember consciously that someone said it but something in you remembers.
2) All it takes in some cases is someone explaining/teaching an important or critical point or skill badly, or introduced an area of study that is misaligned with the rest of what you're studying. I remember in 5th grade math we took a violent, wrenching turn into learning base-16 math that the teacher was wholly unequipped to explain--he would just shrug and say "it's for computers, they say"--that was then not followed up on in 6th grade math and I remember feeling utterly bewildered by it.
3) All knowledge has path dependency. We love to imply that with talent OR effort, you can do anything, but both discourses are covering the fact that at some point it's just too late to make up lost ground in all sorts of things (not just STEM). I think that's what we mean by a "wall" sometimes: a recognition that even if we wanted to do something because we now understand how it works and why it's valuable, it's too late a fair amount of the time.
I studied theoretical physics, even started PhD work, but I quickly found that at the Scientific American level it was fascinating and hence easy but at the PhD level it was boring and hence hard. While computer science was more fun than any hobby and hence easy, and it remained so as I burrowed for 45 years. Therefore, “anybody can learn computer science”.
I suspect inclination and aptitude are intertwined in the sense that, for example, one may not have the interest to pursue mathematics at a level that takes one far beyond their aptitude, without a compelling reason.
"Most of the academics who are loudly insistent that it’s essentially impossible to measure individual merit are not accepting thesis students on a first-come, first-served basis, but have some criteria for selecting only “the best” of those who express interest."
These people always select senior project students who are good at algebra, but say it's some sort of -ism to demand that physics majors be good at algebra. Their senior project students get good grades, but it's an -ism to think that good grades mean anything.
These people are why I spend a lot of time humming Holiday in Cambodia to myself.
Couple more basic problems to throw into the mix.
1) All it takes in some cases is someone with authority, usually a teacher, telling you that you are bad at something to lock that in, especially early in life, when *everything* is potentially hard to learn. You may not even remember consciously that someone said it but something in you remembers.
2) All it takes in some cases is someone explaining/teaching an important or critical point or skill badly, or introduced an area of study that is misaligned with the rest of what you're studying. I remember in 5th grade math we took a violent, wrenching turn into learning base-16 math that the teacher was wholly unequipped to explain--he would just shrug and say "it's for computers, they say"--that was then not followed up on in 6th grade math and I remember feeling utterly bewildered by it.
3) All knowledge has path dependency. We love to imply that with talent OR effort, you can do anything, but both discourses are covering the fact that at some point it's just too late to make up lost ground in all sorts of things (not just STEM). I think that's what we mean by a "wall" sometimes: a recognition that even if we wanted to do something because we now understand how it works and why it's valuable, it's too late a fair amount of the time.
I studied theoretical physics, even started PhD work, but I quickly found that at the Scientific American level it was fascinating and hence easy but at the PhD level it was boring and hence hard. While computer science was more fun than any hobby and hence easy, and it remained so as I burrowed for 45 years. Therefore, “anybody can learn computer science”.
I suspect inclination and aptitude are intertwined in the sense that, for example, one may not have the interest to pursue mathematics at a level that takes one far beyond their aptitude, without a compelling reason.
"Most of the academics who are loudly insistent that it’s essentially impossible to measure individual merit are not accepting thesis students on a first-come, first-served basis, but have some criteria for selecting only “the best” of those who express interest."
These people always select senior project students who are good at algebra, but say it's some sort of -ism to demand that physics majors be good at algebra. Their senior project students get good grades, but it's an -ism to think that good grades mean anything.
These people are why I spend a lot of time humming Holiday in Cambodia to myself.