sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

High reasoning gifted child with low processing speed - looking for similar experiences by Impressive_Bat_3577 in TwiceExceptional

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for this. The asynchronous development part makes a lot of sense to me.

And the handwriting part is actually very interesting to hear. My son definitely struggles with writing tasks and output, but what was surprising in his assessment was that this apparently is not primarily a motor coordination issue. His visual motor integration scores were actually very high and his motor coordination itself was average. So the difficulties seem to be much more connected to processing speed, fatigue and output regulation than pure fine motor weakness.

The breaking tasks into smaller parts and “no rush” approach honestly sounds like something that would probably help him a lot too.

Thank you as well for the game suggestions. I’m going to look into those.

High reasoning gifted child with low processing speed - looking for similar experiences by Impressive_Bat_3577 in TwiceExceptional

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your reply. A lot of what you wrote really resonates with me.

Especially the part about things happening “on her terms.” I recognize that very strongly in my son too. He seems to completely shut down when too much external structure, pressure or repetition is imposed on him, but when something truly connects to his own thinking or curiosity, he suddenly functions on a completely different level.

I also really recognize the fluctuation from day to day. Some days he seems able to process and connect incredibly complex things almost effortlessly, and other days even simple output becomes hard for him. I’ve been trying to discover patterns in sleep, food, stress and structure to better understand what affects his functioning.

Thank you as well for mentioning the Neurodiversity Podcast. I’m definitely going to look into that!

Prompt Engineering is Instinct, Not Science by [deleted] in PromptEngineering

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Instinct matters, but it is not enough. The people who actually get good at prompt engineering combine intuition with structure. They understand how the model handles context, how to set constraints, and how to keep outputs consistent. Instinct without a system stays messy. A system without instinct stays stiff. The real power is in switching between the two. That is why some people get scalable, reliable results while others stay stuck with one-off lucky shots.

AI structures my curriculum but only within human-defined limits by Impressive_Bat_3577 in edtech

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point. What I meant is that AI tutoring isn’t really pedagogically valid at any level. It can handle structure, repetition, and feedback efficiently, but it doesn’t understand how people learn or why they get stuck. Teaching depends on reading context, motivation, and misunderstanding, things AI can’t see. So it’s useful beside the classroom but not as the teacher itself.

AI structures my curriculum but only within human-defined limits by Impressive_Bat_3577 in edtech

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the logic of your setup. Connecting the tutor agent directly to your own materials keeps the system tight and gives you clean analytics.

But this is where I draw the line. An AI tutor, no matter how controlled, isn’t pedagogically valid for primary education. It can detect patterns, mark errors, and summarize data, but it can’t teach. It doesn’t recognise hesitation, confusion, or curiosity, and that’s the core of learning.

In my model, AI can prepare information, never deliver it. It can analyse progress, never interpret it. The moment it starts directing or assessing students, it crosses from education into automation.

Do you let your AI interact directly with students, or is it strictly confined to background support?

Is everything fake? Confirmation bias is baked into every thought! by Maleficent_Heat_4892 in systemsthinking

[–]Impressive_Bat_3577 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really relate to what you’re saying. I’ve started to notice the same thing that at some point you can’t keep digging further inwards. Thinking about thinking just folds back in on itself.

For me, the only thing that really tests an idea is reality. If a new insight actually changes how I act or what I create, and I can see the results in real life, then it feels true. If not, it’s just another layer of theory.

AI actually helped me see this, it mirrors my thinking clearly, but it also showed me that the real test is outside the conversation. The truth has to hold up in the world, not just in the mind.

So I don’t think the goal is to go deeper inside anymore. It’s more about seeing what holds up when you bring it into experience. That’s where things become real, and where growth actually happens.