I find your different perspectives for at-risk youth to be absolutely fascinating.
Here’s where I see the difference lies – agree/disagree/not applicable if you would:
Estelle: Sees potential in existing skills. With nurturing, existing cleverness can be leveraged. Lock-picking –> engineering. I’ve advised/taught/done this myself: hacking –> programming
BUT Seedy has an excellent point as well:
They got where they are because they got caught. Not as clever as they thought. Rather than, “Seeds with nurturing will grow” it appears to be, “They’re just seeds. Not trees. And even some trees don’t bear much fruit.”
Embedded Potential vs What Is Today.
I don’t see either one of you as wrong. From a pragmatic perspective, both useful viewpoints but for different purposes.
“Stop, you’re not so clever. Sit down and listen.” Very necessary in some cases.
“Hey, that’s clever how you built a device to swing the cat over the house. These are other ways you can use these transferable skills. Let’s start a project.”
Possible in some cases.
“You’re not so smart kid. Listen to me instead” would not have worked for me. Yet, I know people that approach would have worked very well for. Different temperment.
The “Let’s start a project” would get my skeptical eye, “what bullshit is this lady/guy peddling here?” but I’d probably give it a go and stop swinging cats.
Then again, I love cats. I’d never do something like that, now or as a kid.
Just giving a horrible example. Disagree at will or agree, it’s just how I see what I see.
Thoughts?