It would be easier to just not shame in the first place, and you avoid the risk of people who don't get taught a specific skill of motivating based on shame, which isn't even the best way to motivate people in the first place.

disagree. shame driven motivation works better than positive reinforcement for certain things. weight loss is the best example when done to men, the reverse is true for women. another example is sports coaching, where negative reinforcement can be better for some athletes, and confidence building is better for others. equality in motivation is as narrow sighted as equality in anything.

Shame is exceptionally ill-suited to intellectual and creative endeavors. Negative motivation works terribly for those tasks specifically. Stress in general is bad for intellectual and creative achievement.

Asians have entered the chat.

Asian suicide rates have entered the chat

if you wanna make an omelet.

the US is going the route of making scrambled eggs. crack small, jumbo, duck, quail, w/e u want in the bowl, add butter. and scrambled eggs is the egg order of the uneducated caveman. take it from me, im a literal egg farmer, i'd know.

i used to hate when the eggs i'd grab from my chigguns would have blood in them when i cracked em' in the pan, but yolo

so the answer is dont encourage anything? total nonsense.

it makes no sense to have smarter kids and dumber kids in the same class. the smarter kids are going to sit there bored, pissed off that they have to sit there dumbed down to because of the dumber kids. its a recipe for trouble.

extra protein with bonus murder.

The answer is exactly the opposite. Encourage all gifts. When you segregate one group into "gifted" and not others, it implies they are just better than others, when in reality they're just different. We should have higher level classes for smarter kids, and we should have trade classes for kids who want to go into trades, and all kinds of things like that. There's no reason to segregate one group off and call them gifted.