Raising Kids Who Can Think

[Piscivore]

Young children are obviously far more emotional than older kids and adults.

I don't think that is obvious at all. Adults may learn to express their emotions in ways other than screaming or throwing tantrums (but really, not as often as we'd like to think), yet the vast majority of humans still function primarily as emotional decision-makers.

 

[Nihilianth]

I don't think that is obvious at all. Adults may learn to express their emotions in ways other than screaming or throwing tantrums (but really, not as often as we'd like to think), yet the vast majority of humans still function primarily as emotional decision-makers.

I probably should have worded it differently: Young children cannot control their emotions as easily as older kids and adults can.

In any case, I think it is rather true that young children are more emotional anyway. Whereas, an adult can function properly under emotional distress, a child cannot. (Lack of control over emotions as described above.)

At the same time, a child will be hurt more than an adult if they were called a "poopy-face," for instance. In other words, small offenses towards a child frequently has larger impacts on a child than it does with an adult. Try walking up to your neighbor and call him a "poopy-face" sometime when he is out mowing his lawn.

But yeah, you are right to a certain extent. If something huge happens to a child, like the loss of a parent, it will obviously have a very large impact. But if a parent loses a child, it will obviously be equally devastating. So when it comes to tragedy, I think comparing the differences between the hurt of an adult to the hurt of a child can be comparable. Except in the child's case, they will not only be hurt, but will be far more confused and scared as well.

 

[KingofMadCows]

No, I didn't take any behaviorism classes. I was in secondary education, and was told those there was only one class at the time, and they prefer that people going into the Master's degree program, or current teachers in the elementary level program take those classes first.

I ended up in an elementary school anyway. But I do have a prospect to land a high school job hopefully next year.

I think that biology does have a fairly large impact on development, though. I wouldn't know how to measure whether you are "overestimating" the impact it may have. But certainly, I am of the strong opinion that age does matter quite a bit. Of course, individuals may vary greatly. But as an example:

Young children are obviously far more emotional than older kids and adults. This, perhaps due to the frontal lobe not fully functional yet, and the neurotransmitters going like crazy in young children. They have yet to develop fully in the area that controls emotion, and planning.

When it comes to education, certainly teaching children plays an enormous role in making the connections. Biology alone cannot get a person to understand even rudimentary arithmetic skills. However, I think that biology does play quite a large role in making it easier to acquire those skills as they get to be around the age of 6 or 7.* Around the age of 12,* for example, is when the frontal lobe naturally grows more connections and develops more fully, increasing the ability to plan out events, and to become more self-conscious about the effects their actions have on those around them.

*Individuals vary to a great degree as I have said. Some, such as those with social disorders, never fully develop the capability to stop themselves from doing something stupid that will result in negative consequences for themselves, like calling a boss a jerk for instance.

So I think it is entirely appropriate to use Piaget as a guideline of what you might expect in any child as they grow older. But certainly, one should be cautious, and take it with a grain of salt.

There have been many and great experiments done with Object Permanence, such as Bower, Baillargeon, Gratch, and etc. I have currently run out of time, so I can't get into this one atm.

The most obvious example of how people overestimate the role of biology is in the way that they treat troubled and developmentally challenged children. It is simply assumed that the source of the problem is something internal to the child rather than because of their environment and the kids end up getting treated in a way that just makes the problem worse. Gifted children are also often assumed to have superior abilities because of some internal factors but at least they are treated in such a way that complements and advances their abilities.

With the example of younger children being more emotional, why is the initial assumption that it's due to biological causes? Younger children are treated differently than older children. Parents and teachers are more accepting of greater emotionality in younger children. There are plenty of spoiled older children who throw tantrums and act like little kids. There are also plenty of younger kids who act much more mature than their peers. So how do you know that it's not because of the way they were raised? After all, kids only spend a fraction of their waking hours at school. Additionally, how do you know that the development of the frontal lobes is not affected by the environment? We know that the environment has a significant effect on the development of the brain. Parts of the brain grow or shrink due to experience. Perhaps development of the frontal lobes is due more to experience than biological maturity.

 

[Nihilianth]

The most obvious example of how people overestimate the role of biology is in the way that they treat troubled and developmentally challenged children. It is simply assumed that the source of the problem is something internal to the child rather than because of their environment and the kids end up getting treated in a way that just makes the problem worse. Gifted children are also often assumed to have superior abilities because of some internal factors but at least they are treated in such a way that complements and advances their abilities.

I don't think that it is overestimating nature at all when you say that a developmentally challenged child is slower because of their inner workings. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense.

Lemme ask you this question: Do believe there is inherent talent in anyone? If not, what do you make of one kid working his bum off in....say...baseball and getting nowhere with it, as opposed to someone who just puts a glove on for the very first time and is able to prove himself a far superior player? There is, after all, such a thing as "natural talent." If there were not, then anyone who picks up a baseball and works incredibly hard at it should be able to become a million-dollar professional baseball player by the age of 20. It turns out, I wasn't even able to make it on the State College Spikes (Pittsburgh Pirates low A team.) Despite the fact that I have played ball from age 6, to age 24 (three years ago.) Oh, I would be outside playing all summer long until the sun would go down. I loved the game, and worked very hard at it. I got nowhere beyond college.

Also, you had suggested developmentally challenged children. What about children with Down's Syndrome? Of course, they can function reasonable well, but the chances of someone with Down Syndrome becoming President is extremely slim....probably none.

Look at it this way: The best studies done in the subject area of nature vs nurture are with twin studies. Most of these studies include identical twins who grew up with the same parents, fraternal twins with the same parents, identicals who have been adopted to separate homes, fraternals to separate homes, as well as regular siblings for each. Identical twins have a much stronger correlation to having similar abilities, even if separated at birth, than fraternal share even if they grow up in the same household. These studies are extremely compelling.

With the example of younger children being more emotional, why is the initial assumption that it's due to biological causes?

It is not an assumption. It is a pretty well covered. the fact that the brain, particularly the frontal lobe, is not as fully developed is a major indication. In any case, if you just simply apply common sense, there is really no other conclusion. Just by observing the behavior of younger children compared to the behavior of older children and adults, you can clearly see a major difference in emotional states. Every single day, I have probably at least one or two children in my class who end up crying over something or other. Usually because little Bobby called little Susy a poopy-face. Go into a high school setting, and you have someone crying maybe once a week at most, and usually over something much more severe than simly being called a poopy-face. Go into a business office, you probably won't find anyone crying, unless they receive some really bad news. and most certainly, they won;t be crying over being called a poopy-face.

Neat little experiment, if you can stomach the sadistic nature of it: Go up to a random child, and start calling them a poopy-face. Be like "Nah, nya, nya nyah nay, you're a poopy-face! Hahaha! Poopy face!" Then go up to your next door neighbor or other other adult and try that. See what happens, and the different reactions you will get between young children and adult.

Younger children are treated differently than older children. Parents and teachers are more accepting of greater emotionality in younger children. There are plenty of spoiled older children who throw tantrums and act like little kids. There are also plenty of younger kids who act much more mature than their peers. So how do you know that it's not because of the way they were raised?

I think you asked the wrong question here, because that isn't anywhere near what I said. Read this again:

But it does appear that you are correct that Piaget underestimated child development. This is a point I tend to agree with myself. But I still think there is something to it. I'll explain later, as I have to finish this project I am currently working on.

When it comes to education, certainly teaching children plays an enormous role in making the connections. Biology alone cannot get a person to understand even rudimentary arithmetic skills.....

....*Individuals vary to a great degree as I have said. Some, such as those with social disorders, never fully develop the capability to stop themselves from doing something stupid that will result in negative consequences for themselves, like calling a boss a jerk for instance.

I guess I was not perfectly clear on this point, because I was mainly espousing the role that nature plays, as opposed to nurture.

As I have said in the first quote, nurture is even more important than nature. Without nurture, there is no way of knowing that 1+1=2, or that red berries are probably poisonous. There would be no development of such things as morality.

With pure biological nature, however, it IS possible to form a sort of communication, or some sort of psuedo-language. (The language center in the human brain is nothing short of amazing. It does allow us to develop a sort of language. Example: the movie "Nell". It is possible to create simple tools, like using a stick to try to poke a pineapple out of the tree to eat it.

After all, kids only spend a fraction of their waking hours at school. Additionally, how do you know that the development of the frontal lobes is not affected by the environment? We know that the environment has a significant effect on the development of the brain. Parts of the brain grow or shrink due to experience. Perhaps development of the frontal lobes is due more to experience than biological maturity.

Heh, well, it is only common sense that the frontal lobe (the entire brain, really) does grow. It grows much like your skeletal framework grows in one sense. When you are first conceived, you are certainly not anything that is recognizable as human. As you become a fetus, your brain hasn't even begun to develop yet. And finally, when you are born, you are merely still pretty much a fetus at full term. You don't just automatically have a fully-developed brain or anything like that.

It also grows differently from your skeletal or muscular systems. While your brain can continue to develop naturally on its own just like your skeletal frame. It develops will develop even quicker and more efficiently along with input from the outside world, unlike your skeletal frame.

So yes, nature certainly is involved in the process. Just how much? Who knows?

 

[KingofMadCows]

I don't think that it is overestimating nature at all when you say that a developmentally challenged child is slower because of their inner workings. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense.

Lemme ask you this question: Do believe there is inherent talent in anyone? If not, what do you make of one kid working his bum off in....say...baseball and getting nowhere with it, as opposed to someone who just puts a glove on for the very first time and is able to prove himself a far superior player? There is, after all, such a thing as "natural talent." If there were not, then anyone who picks up a baseball and works incredibly hard at it should be able to become a million-dollar professional baseball player by the age of 20. It turns out, I wasn't even able to make it on the State College Spikes (Pittsburgh Pirates low A team.) Despite the fact that I have played ball from age 6, to age 24 (three years ago.) Oh, I would be outside playing all summer long until the sun would go down. I loved the game, and worked very hard at it. I got nowhere beyond college.

Also, you had suggested developmentally challenged children. What about children with Down's Syndrome? Of course, they can function reasonable well, but the chances of someone with Down Syndrome becoming President is extremely slim....probably none.

Obviously there are innate differences, especially in terms of how fast children learn but that's not the problem. The problem is the assumption that slower learning means inability to learn or some kind of limit on how much can be learned.

In terms of natural aptitude, obviously those exist as well. There are savants who are able to acquire abilities that would take a normal person a lifetime to learn. However, before assuming that someone is naturally gifted, you have to look at their learning history. It's not just a matter of how much effort you spend in learning, it's how you learn. One example is state dependent learning, if you study under the same condition as when you need to perform then your performance will improve. So if you practice basketball at a place similar to where you'll compete, and in the same emotional and physical state, then you'll do much better than if you practice somewhere else in a different emotional and physical state. Another example is focusing mainly on success while ignoring failure. To put it another way, practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.

Look at it this way: The best studies done in the subject area of nature vs nurture are with twin studies. Most of these studies include identical twins who grew up with the same parents, fraternal twins with the same parents, identicals who have been adopted to separate homes, fraternals to separate homes, as well as regular siblings for each. Identical twins have a much stronger correlation to having similar abilities, even if separated at birth, than fraternal share even if they grow up in the same household. These studies are extremely compelling.

Yet the correlation is not 1, even among monozygotic twins who are raised together. In fact, the correlation decreases as a function of age. Not to mention how the correlation for several traits is less than 0.5.

With the example of younger children being more emotional, why is the initial assumption that it's due to biological causes?

It is not an assumption. It is a pretty well covered. the fact that the brain, particularly the frontal lobe, is not as fully developed is a major indication. In any case, if you just simply apply common sense, there is really no other conclusion. Just by observing the behavior of younger children compared to the behavior of older children and adults, you can clearly see a major difference in emotional states. Every single day, I have probably at least one or two children in my class who end up crying over something or other. Usually because little Bobby called little Susy a poopy-face. Go into a high school setting, and you have someone crying maybe once a week at most, and usually over something much more severe than simly being called a poopy-face. Go into a business office, you probably won't find anyone crying, unless they receive some really bad news. and most certainly, they won;t be crying over being called a poopy-face.

Neat little experiment, if you can stomach the sadistic nature of it: Go up to a random child, and start calling them a poopy-face. Be like "Nah, nya, nya nyah nay, you're a poopy-face! Hahaha! Poopy face!" Then go up to your next door neighbor or other other adult and try that. See what happens, and the different reactions you will get between young children and adult.

There's correlation but that hardly implies causation.

I guess I was not perfectly clear on this point, because I was mainly espousing the role that nature plays, as opposed to nurture.

As I have said in the first quote, nurture is even more important than nature. Without nurture, there is no way of knowing that 1+1=2, or that red berries are probably poisonous. There would be no development of such things as morality.

With pure biological nature, however, it IS possible to form a sort of communication, or some sort of psuedo-language. (The language center in the human brain is nothing short of amazing. It does allow us to develop a sort of language. Example: the movie "Nell". It is possible to create simple tools, like using a stick to try to poke a pineapple out of the tree to eat it.

That's highly unlikely. Stryker and Sherk did an experiment in 1975 where they had newborn kittens wear goggles with horizontal lines painted on them for a few hours a day. For the rest of the time, the kittens stayed in a completely dark room without the goggles. After a few months, the kittens only responded to horizontal lines and became blind to vertical lines. Also, human infants die without physical contact. This was a big problem in orphanages about a century ago. Infants were kept in sanitary conditions and given adequate food but they still wasted away. In 1920, a policy was enacted to have infants held and infant mortality rate dropped significantly.

Heh, well, it is only common sense that the frontal lobe (the entire brain, really) does grow. It grows much like your skeletal framework grows in one sense. When you are first conceived, you are certainly not anything that is recognizable as human. As you become a fetus, your brain hasn't even begun to develop yet. And finally, when you are born, you are merely still pretty much a fetus at full term. You don't just automatically have a fully-developed brain or anything like that.

It also grows differently from your skeletal or muscular systems. While your brain can continue to develop naturally on its own just like your skeletal frame. It develops will develop even quicker and more efficiently along with input from the outside world, unlike your skeletal frame.

So yes, nature certainly is involved in the process. Just how much? Who knows?

There is growth but there's also synaptic pruning.

 

[Nihilianth]

Obviously there are innate differences, especially in terms of how fast children learn but that's not the problem. The problem is the assumption that slower learning means inability to learn or some kind of limit on how much can be learned.

OHH! I get what your saying! Ok, my fault! I thought you were talking bout the STAGES of learning. Not about the speed of learning. Well, certainly this is true.

In terms of natural aptitude, obviously those exist as well. There are savants who are able to acquire abilities that would take a normal person a lifetime to learn. However, before assuming that someone is naturally gifted, you have to look at their learning history. It's not just a matter of how much effort you spend in learning, it's how you learn. One example is state dependent learning, if you study under the same condition as when you need to perform then your performance will improve. So if you practice basketball at a place similar to where you'll compete, and in the same emotional and physical state, then you'll do much better than if you practice somewhere else in a different emotional and physical state. Another example is focusing mainly on success while ignoring failure. To put it another way, practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.

Oh, certainly this is true! I am discounting the effcieincy in the way in which you learn. I think the best example of this is in the Japanese anime series called "Ookiku Furikabutte" or "Big Windup!" in English. I had a baseball coach growing up who used the same theories. Incidentally, we had the same practice of "imagining a runner on third," and would practice with one of the coaches standing on third the entire time, ready to run home at any moment. It gave me chills, when that series did the EXACT SAME exercise! Needless to say, we nearly got to the Little League World Series every single year from 11 on up, actually getting there once when we were 17 in the Babe Ruth Little League division. (Needless to say, our head coach used a lot of psychological theories of learning to train us to perform up to our best. One of the biggest things he would train us, is the same technique that speed-readers use. I cannot think of what it is called at the moment. But you practice taking in words or numbers all at once, which is what we actually do naturally; rather than one at a time which is what we are taught to do in a formal classroom setting.

But this theory has to do with how much nurture contributes to learning. It doesn't really negate the idea of how much nature may contribute.

Yet the correlation is not 1, even among monozygotic twins who are raised together. In fact, the correlation decreases as a function of age. Not to mention how the correlation for several traits is less than 0.5.

This is very true, but I think the reason why is simply because twins, even identicals such as myself, while they share the same genes, do not share the same exact DNA. I can use myself as an example of a mini "case study." From the moment we were born, and up to this day, we have completely different personalities by nature. My brother is a type A personality all the way. I am a type B personality. Example: When we took our first steps, was at a beach back in like 1984 or something. The second my parents set us down in the sand on the beach, my brother immediately got up to his feet, and practically ran. I just sat there watching him get up and go, and started crying and crawling after him.

As embarrassing as that story is, it is one of the most endearing stories from our childhood, according to my parents. lol. But the point is, that is far from the only example of just how naturally we are different. And yet, we have a very similar skill set in sports, and academics.

While this example may be far from professional, and may not have anything to do with the norm, some of the twin studies done are extremely compelling. Martin and Eaves pioneered modern twin studies in 1977. But to be honest, I have never really gotten too much into behavior genetics in any of my classes. I have like one chapter in my intro psych class, and a few notes in one of my higher-level psych courses that I jogged down.

There's correlation but that hardly implies causation.

I never really said it does. But it does have a rather compelling indication.

That's highly unlikely. Stryker and Sherk did an experiment in 1975 where they had newborn kittens wear goggles with horizontal lines painted on them for a few hours a day. For the rest of the time, the kittens stayed in a completely dark room without the goggles. After a few months, the kittens only responded to horizontal lines and became blind to vertical lines. Also, human infants die without physical contact. This was a big problem in orphanages about a century ago. Infants were kept in sanitary conditions and given adequate food but they still wasted away. In 1920, a policy was enacted to have infants held and infant mortality rate dropped significantly.

This was very interesting. I do remember reading about this! But I don't think that it really suggests that nature doesn't play a role in cognitive development.

There is growth but there's also synaptic pruning.

This is especially true of language-learning.

The most compelling evidence there is about the role of nature: Twin studies, and emotional development. Both are readily observable.

(I'll do a little bit of research at some point about behavior development over the course of this thread's life,)

 

[KingofMadCows]

OHH! I get what your saying! Ok, my fault! I thought you were talking bout the STAGES of learning. Not about the speed of learning. Well, certainly this is true.



Oh, certainly this is true! I am discounting the effcieincy in the way in which you learn. I think the best example of this is in the Japanese anime series called "Ookiku Furikabutte" or "Big Windup!" in English. I had a baseball coach growing up who used the same theories. Incidentally, we had the same practice of "imagining a runner on third," and would practice with one of the coaches standing on third the entire time, ready to run home at any moment. It gave me chills, when that series did the EXACT SAME exercise! Needless to say, we nearly got to the Little League World Series every single year from 11 on up, actually getting there once when we were 17 in the Babe Ruth Little League division. (Needless to say, our head coach used a lot of psychological theories of learning to train us to perform up to our best. One of the biggest things he would train us, is the same technique that speed-readers use. I cannot think of what it is called at the moment. But you practice taking in words or numbers all at once, which is what we actually do naturally; rather than one at a time which is what we are taught to do in a formal classroom setting.

But this theory has to do with how much nurture contributes to learning. It doesn't really negate the idea of how much nature may contribute.

Yes but the problem in the US education system is that if a kid learns more slowly than other kids then it's just assumed that there is a limit to how much they can learn. The schools rarely try to use different strategies for teaching troubled or developmentally challenged kids. They just put those kids in special classes where there is very little effort made to teach them.

Often times, that's also the attitude that the parent takes. For example, if a child is prone to throwing tantrums then the parents just assume that it's a natural part of the child's personality and don't really try to find a way of controlling that behavior. They often don't realize that they are the ones who are making the tantrums worse by capitulating to the child.

This is very true, but I think the reason why is simply because twins, even identicals such as myself, while they share the same genes, do not share the same exact DNA. I can use myself as an example of a mini "case study." From the moment we were born, and up to this day, we have completely different personalities by nature. My brother is a type A personality all the way. I am a type B personality. Example: When we took our first steps, was at a beach back in like 1984 or something. The second my parents set us down in the sand on the beach, my brother immediately got up to his feet, and practically ran. I just sat there watching him get up and go, and started crying and crawling after him.

As embarrassing as that story is, it is one of the most endearing stories from our childhood, according to my parents. lol. But the point is, that is far from the only example of just how naturally we are different. And yet, we have a very similar skill set in sports, and academics.

While this example may be far from professional, and may not have anything to do with the norm, some of the twin studies done are extremely compelling. Martin and Eaves pioneered modern twin studies in 1977. But to be honest, I have never really gotten too much into behavior genetics in any of my classes. I have like one chapter in my intro psych class, and a few notes in one of my higher-level psych courses that I jogged down.

Monozygotic twins do share the same DNA but epigenetics change as time passes. As soon as the twins are exposed to different environments, activation of genes change.

This was very interesting. I do remember reading about this! But I don't think that it really suggests that nature doesn't play a role in cognitive development.

This is especially true of language-learning.

The most compelling evidence there is about the role of nature: Twin studies, and emotional development. Both are readily observable.

(I'll do a little bit of research at some point about behavior development over the course of this thread's life,)

Nature creates the potential for development but without nurture that potential is wasted. This is true of everything. If you expose a child to the colors that are difficult for people to distinguish between like dark orange, tangerine, and princeton orange, and you teach the child to distinguish between those colors, then that child will be able to perceive more colors when they grow up. You can do the same thing with art, music, languages, etc. Heck, behaviorists have taught pigeons to distinguish between works by different artists and musicians.

 

[mike3]

(del, mv to other forum)

 

[Dorian Gray]

I am going to have to call you out on this, for turning it into a religious discussion, when clearly it is not.

I suppose any excuse for people to bash on those who happen to believe in God.

You're right. Let's give God the credit for the little girl who saved her family. Oh, and also let's give God the credit for all the other children who didn't save their families, thus dying horrible watery violent deaths.

 

[Dorian Gray]

tl;dr

 

[mikeyx]

As the father of a 9 month old, these are issues that I have started to think about. I think the video sums up nicely how to approach raising kids who can think critically without shoving it down their throats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7oA--rJ_QM

All children should be required to attend Military school until 18.

 

[themusicteacher]

To anyone who thinks kids (or people) are naturally curious, it should be rather obvious that they are, on the whole, not. It takes a great deal of encouragement and exposure to stimuli for anyone to go beyond the obvious or immediately utilitarian. Why is it that students are always asking "Is this going to be on the test" or saying "this is boring" when you try to go more in depth on a concept or topic? When I think of my own kids and encouraging them to be critical in their thought, I want them to feel like it's okay (not to mention preferable) to go beyond the superficial and get into the nuts and bolts of things. Not only that, I want them to see me problem solving and asking tough questions rather than looking for easy answers or being satisfied with simple explanations.

 

[mikeyx]

I would like to also add: Wait until they are a little older. Like between the ages of 10-12. Those are the years in which they naturally develop the ability to think critically at a very particular stage of natural development of the brain, which Piaget called the Period of Formal Operations. http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml

It has further been suggested that if you force it, and force it too early, you may end up confusing the child, and could be quite counter-productive.

By then, your kids will be in Military school, and too indoctrinated, but the results of their first freak out always proves interesting