Thanks, this was very thought-provoking. I don't think I completely agree with you, though. This is because, as a student with a learning disability, I view "intelligent" as exactly as inherent and situation-dependent, and exactly as important, as "hard-working". They are similar in every respect, to my mind.
Both are traits that are somewhat inherent, but can be cultivated to a degree. Both are traits used to insult people with particular learning disabilities. Both can only really be evaluated on behavior, and you don't really know how much output is coming from each trait. Both can be highly situational or domain-specific.
I'm not comfortable with a list that suggests replacing one word with another making a different, no more inherently valid, value judgement. This is based on my experience with a learning disability. I was constantly called "intelligent" as a student, but nobody in my entire life has called me "hardworking". Even if I work as hard as I can with my unmedicated attention span, most of my accomplishment comes from the fact that most tasks are not insurmountably difficult to me, even without the hard work and focus someone without such a disability may be capable of. As a result of my experience, while I do value "hardworking" people far more than "intelligent" people, I would not be worthy of praise if only focus and motivation had value.
Part of my interest in this post is that it's provoked me to think about language that focuses only on observable behavior. Perhaps I would be happier if the list contained exclusively terms that can be applied based entirely on behavior, but "curious" is not "inquisitive" and "thoughtful" is not a statement purely about behavior. I think what you've done is replace words lauding one trait ("cleverness") with words lauding another one ("diligence"). It seems that you believe that praise should be based on motivation and focus, which I do not see as superior to or less ableist than a view in which praise is based on whatever trait may contribute value.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-09-18 04:33 pm (UTC)Both are traits that are somewhat inherent, but can be cultivated to a degree. Both are traits used to insult people with particular learning disabilities. Both can only really be evaluated on behavior, and you don't really know how much output is coming from each trait. Both can be highly situational or domain-specific.
I'm not comfortable with a list that suggests replacing one word with another making a different, no more inherently valid, value judgement. This is based on my experience with a learning disability. I was constantly called "intelligent" as a student, but nobody in my entire life has called me "hardworking". Even if I work as hard as I can with my unmedicated attention span, most of my accomplishment comes from the fact that most tasks are not insurmountably difficult to me, even without the hard work and focus someone without such a disability may be capable of. As a result of my experience, while I do value "hardworking" people far more than "intelligent" people, I would not be worthy of praise if only focus and motivation had value.
Part of my interest in this post is that it's provoked me to think about language that focuses only on observable behavior. Perhaps I would be happier if the list contained exclusively terms that can be applied based entirely on behavior, but "curious" is not "inquisitive" and "thoughtful" is not a statement purely about behavior. I think what you've done is replace words lauding one trait ("cleverness") with words lauding another one ("diligence"). It seems that you believe that praise should be based on motivation and focus, which I do not see as superior to or less ableist than a view in which praise is based on whatever trait may contribute value.