Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation(slate.com)
slate.com
Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/children_s_language_development_talk_and_listen_to_them_from_birth.html
51 comments
This is a wonderful article and I am glad that Slate published it. Wouldn't it be great if there were more people like Dr. Suskind working in all sectors of our world?! Her research and findings are definitely something I have seen firsthand, but I am glad to learn that we have research now that proves my observations.
In fact, I believe that people who work for an hourly wage and who work long hours to make ends meet, do not have the time/energy to cook for their families. Instead, with their low income, they look to find easy and quick ways to feed themselves and their families, sometimes resorting to fast food, if not always. In turn, the children in these families grow up thinking this is the way things are done and never learn to cook for themselves. All they have been taught is to eat what comes out of a can or box, instead of preparing themselves and egg and toast. Consequently you have generation after generation not learning to cook, to eat fast food, and this, to me, is the reason why we have been steadily becoming the most obese and disease plagued people in the world.
I hope that soon there will be solid research to show that my observation is correct, but more importantly that like developing good language skills, being healthy is something attainable by even those in low income households through simple discipline.
30 million words fewer in 3 years?? That's 27397 words per day... at 12 waking hours per day for a child it's about 38 words per minute - I find it hard to believe.
I was curious too. To get a back of the envelope calculation on how fast people talk I watched a talk show and counted how many words they said in 1 minute. It was 103, so it seems possible.
Me too. There's some big mistake in their data here.
I think things from the study like this are probably more relevant.
"In addition to a lack of exposure to these 30 million words, the words a child from a low-income family has typically mastered are often negative directives, meaning words of discouragement. The ratios of encouraging versus discouraging feedback found within the study, when extrapolated, evidences that by age four, the average child from a family on welfare will hear 125,000 more words of discouragement than encouragement. When compared to the 560,000 more words of praise as opposed to discouragement that a child from a high-income family will receive, this disparity is extraordinarily vast."
"In addition to a lack of exposure to these 30 million words, the words a child from a low-income family has typically mastered are often negative directives, meaning words of discouragement. The ratios of encouraging versus discouraging feedback found within the study, when extrapolated, evidences that by age four, the average child from a family on welfare will hear 125,000 more words of discouragement than encouragement. When compared to the 560,000 more words of praise as opposed to discouragement that a child from a high-income family will receive, this disparity is extraordinarily vast."
Personally I suspect that children are born with varying levels of intelligence (yes, some people are born less intelligent than others) and that the sort of nurturing one provides has a strong effect on how that intelligence develops. I suspect that nurturing can make up a lot of ground but that we do not all start from an even playing field.
Anybody who's seen a family with more than one child knows environment isn't the primary determinant of intelligence. I know the blank slate theory is comfortable from a political standpoint, but to quote Orwell, "You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool."
Can some please find out what Billy Ray Valentine thinks about the nature vs nurture debate?
Hold up! Hey, who's been putting out their Kools on my floor?
Hold up! Hey, who's been putting out their Kools on my floor?
Talking to kids like an adult -- what a concept!
I'm glad this article came out, and getting this method more in the mainstream.
I'm glad this article came out, and getting this method more in the mainstream.
Alternatively: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by breathing air.
“Conversation enriches the understanding, but solitude is the school of genius”. - Gibbon
This claim can be dis-proven by common sense. Lets look at families with more kids. Each kid should be smarter and smarter because the other kids talk and converse.
Kids who go to day care with other older, talking kids should be brilliant.
I am sure that there are many other no-brainier situations when kids hear more words and have more conversations and are not smarter as well.
Why do these big scientific articles like this always seem so trivially flawed and ridiculous? Is is just me?
Kids who go to day care with other older, talking kids should be brilliant.
I am sure that there are many other no-brainier situations when kids hear more words and have more conversations and are not smarter as well.
Why do these big scientific articles like this always seem so trivially flawed and ridiculous? Is is just me?
[deleted]
The importance of talking with your children during early development was also covered on an episode[1] of Lexicon Valley (referencing the same research data as this article) for those interested.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...
grazie. I was looking for this one.
> I recently stopped to congratulate a young mother pushing her toddler in a stroller. The woman had been talking to her barely verbal daughter all the way up the block, pointing out things they had passed, asking questions like "What color are those flowers?" and talking about what they would do when they got to the park.
This is a rare occurrence in my Brooklyn neighborhood, I told her. All too often, the mothers and nannies I see are tuned in to their cellphones, BlackBerrys and iPods, not their young children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29brod.html?ref=sci...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29brod.html?ref=sci...
I don't know whether this is true, but it feels true, and I've been operating as if it were.
C.f. the cited book by Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences In The Everyday Experiences of Young American Children.
"The more parents talked to their children, the faster the children's vocabularies were growing and the higher children's IQ test scores at age 3 and later. [...] [By age 4], an average child in a professional family would have the accumulated experience with almost 45 million words, an average child in a working-class family would have accumulated experience with 26 million words, and an average child in a welfare family would have accumulated experience with 13 million words. [...] Just to provide an average welfare child with an amount of weekly language experience equal to that of an average working-class child would require 41 hours per week of out-of-home experience as rich in words addressed to the child as that in an average professional home. [...] By the time children are 4 years old, intervention programs come too late and can provide too little experience to make up for the past."
The basic idea is that the best determiner of academic success is the number of words per day spoken to the child (listening to audio/tv doesn't work, and is generally thought to be harmful, especially before age 3.) Essentially by the time kids get to kindergarten, there is already a 2+ year achievement gap between wealthy kids and poor kids, mostly for this reason. In addition to being enormous on its own, this gap then compounds greatly because of tracking, which tends to be introduced in some form or another starting around age six:
"We found that first-grade ability-group placement can have persistent effects on children's achievement in school over a period of several years and may shape the expectations of children's performance held by significant others, such as parents and teachers. Whether these effects are instructional, social, or institutional, they are real, and they have implications for children's future schooling trajectories. [...] Instructional grouping may have the unintended effect of increasing inequalities in educational outcomes, largely by creating inequalities in educational resources and rewards." (I forget the author, but this is quoting in Riordan's book Equality and Achievement in the relevant section.)
Anyway I'd definitely recommend reading Meaningful Differences, in addition to being a great example of how science should be done in terms of robust methodology, it's also one of the most insightful and important scientific findings of the last hundred years.
The one thing I'd add though is that in addition to the total volume of language, which is the most important variable, there are a few other counterintuitive findings worth knowing about. E.g. reading aloud to your kids doesn't actually benefit their language skills, unless you purposely use certain linguistic constructs while reading to them. And there are other linguistic features you can use that are beneficial, that you wouldn't necessarily think to use without knowing the research, but I'll stop there though so as not to spoil it.
"The more parents talked to their children, the faster the children's vocabularies were growing and the higher children's IQ test scores at age 3 and later. [...] [By age 4], an average child in a professional family would have the accumulated experience with almost 45 million words, an average child in a working-class family would have accumulated experience with 26 million words, and an average child in a welfare family would have accumulated experience with 13 million words. [...] Just to provide an average welfare child with an amount of weekly language experience equal to that of an average working-class child would require 41 hours per week of out-of-home experience as rich in words addressed to the child as that in an average professional home. [...] By the time children are 4 years old, intervention programs come too late and can provide too little experience to make up for the past."
The basic idea is that the best determiner of academic success is the number of words per day spoken to the child (listening to audio/tv doesn't work, and is generally thought to be harmful, especially before age 3.) Essentially by the time kids get to kindergarten, there is already a 2+ year achievement gap between wealthy kids and poor kids, mostly for this reason. In addition to being enormous on its own, this gap then compounds greatly because of tracking, which tends to be introduced in some form or another starting around age six:
"We found that first-grade ability-group placement can have persistent effects on children's achievement in school over a period of several years and may shape the expectations of children's performance held by significant others, such as parents and teachers. Whether these effects are instructional, social, or institutional, they are real, and they have implications for children's future schooling trajectories. [...] Instructional grouping may have the unintended effect of increasing inequalities in educational outcomes, largely by creating inequalities in educational resources and rewards." (I forget the author, but this is quoting in Riordan's book Equality and Achievement in the relevant section.)
Anyway I'd definitely recommend reading Meaningful Differences, in addition to being a great example of how science should be done in terms of robust methodology, it's also one of the most insightful and important scientific findings of the last hundred years.
The one thing I'd add though is that in addition to the total volume of language, which is the most important variable, there are a few other counterintuitive findings worth knowing about. E.g. reading aloud to your kids doesn't actually benefit their language skills, unless you purposely use certain linguistic constructs while reading to them. And there are other linguistic features you can use that are beneficial, that you wouldn't necessarily think to use without knowing the research, but I'll stop there though so as not to spoil it.
Completely empirical:
My nephew started speaking early and quite well. He can name and knows lot of things, tens or hundreds of different animals, what he does, wants etc. Some other kids I've seen don't talk at all or they don't know any words.
It seems to me it's because my sister and his husband talk with him all the time, and explain when they're doing something together. I've been trying to do the same and talk normally with him and not talk down to him or some kid nonsense. He talks back and says if he doesn't understand.
My nephew started speaking early and quite well. He can name and knows lot of things, tens or hundreds of different animals, what he does, wants etc. Some other kids I've seen don't talk at all or they don't know any words.
It seems to me it's because my sister and his husband talk with him all the time, and explain when they're doing something together. I've been trying to do the same and talk normally with him and not talk down to him or some kid nonsense. He talks back and says if he doesn't understand.
That's interesting, but I think there are also studies that show childhood IQ tests don't correlate very well to adolescent or adult IQ tests - which, as others studies have shown, are tests that do correlate well to success/happiness/etc. over lifetimes.
This study would be a lot more interesting if it followed its sample into adulthood and compared IQ scores over time - it very well may do that, it's just not clear from the article that there is very much meaning here when put into context with other studies on childhood IQ.
This study would be a lot more interesting if it followed its sample into adulthood and compared IQ scores over time - it very well may do that, it's just not clear from the article that there is very much meaning here when put into context with other studies on childhood IQ.
Childhood IQ tests get complicated by the fact that a lot of what you measure is which children hit growth spurts already, which come with attendant intellectual improvements.
But I have had a psychologist who specialized in the field say that the best predictor of adult IQ was receptive vocabulary. Meaning how many words does the child understand? Understanding words, even words you don't know how to use, predicts future intellectual development because it says who has the foundation.
Guess how you would build receptive vocabulary?
But I have had a psychologist who specialized in the field say that the best predictor of adult IQ was receptive vocabulary. Meaning how many words does the child understand? Understanding words, even words you don't know how to use, predicts future intellectual development because it says who has the foundation.
Guess how you would build receptive vocabulary?
Adult vocabulary is a strong predictor of adult IQ just as child vocabulary is, but I wouldn't recommend studying vocabulary to get smarter. Being "a predictor" says nothing about being a cause; smarter kids know more words because they're smarter, but the "predictor" relationship is established at the point of "smarter kids know more words".
I am informed (by a Chinese teenager, so possibly not perfectly reliably) that vocabulary size isn't considered a concept in China -- there are words that everyone is expected to know, technical vocabulary, and words that no one is expected to know (by way of example, I use the word "vacillate" in my day-to-day casual speech, but that's unusual, and many native english speakers don't know what it means. That situation is not supposed to be possible in China).
For purposes of my point, the truth of the assertion isn't really relevant. Such circumstances, obviously, mean that vocabulary can't be a predictor of IQ after the age at which it's all been learned. Do you imagine that IQ differences would disappear along with the predictive value of vocabulary size?
I am informed (by a Chinese teenager, so possibly not perfectly reliably) that vocabulary size isn't considered a concept in China -- there are words that everyone is expected to know, technical vocabulary, and words that no one is expected to know (by way of example, I use the word "vacillate" in my day-to-day casual speech, but that's unusual, and many native english speakers don't know what it means. That situation is not supposed to be possible in China).
For purposes of my point, the truth of the assertion isn't really relevant. Such circumstances, obviously, mean that vocabulary can't be a predictor of IQ after the age at which it's all been learned. Do you imagine that IQ differences would disappear along with the predictive value of vocabulary size?
You missed the point. The psychologist had specialized in child development. His claim was that receptive vocabulary in grade school children was the single best predictor that was known for their IQ and tests scores in high school and presumably beyond.
Studying vocabulary as an adult is probably not going to get you very far. But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
(He was telling this at the same time that he was telling me that my 7 year old son had the receptive vocabulary of an average 13 year old. So I was happy to hear it.)
Studying vocabulary as an adult is probably not going to get you very far. But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
(He was telling this at the same time that he was telling me that my 7 year old son had the receptive vocabulary of an average 13 year old. So I was happy to hear it.)
> His claim was that receptive vocabulary in grade school children was the single best predictor that was known for their IQ and tests scores in high school and presumably beyond.
This isn't true. For example, IQ as a 20 year old is a better predictor of IQ in high school than receptive vocabulary in grade school is. It happens that it's hard to observe the IQ at age 20 of a child who isn't 20 yet, but that doesn't change the strength of the predictor.
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
This isn't true. For example, IQ as a 20 year old is a better predictor of IQ in high school than receptive vocabulary in grade school is. It happens that it's hard to observe the IQ at age 20 of a child who isn't 20 yet, but that doesn't change the strength of the predictor.
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
This isn't true. For example, IQ as a 20 year old is a better predictor of IQ in high school than receptive vocabulary in grade school is. It happens that it's hard to observe the IQ at age 20 of a child who isn't 20 yet, but that doesn't change the strength of the predictor.
A predictor is something that you can measure and make predictions from in advance. Therefore by definition the eventual IQ at age 20 is not a predictor of future IQ for grade school children.
Now can we dispense with the semantic games?
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
Not indicative, predictive.
Receptive vocabulary is part of IQ. So of course having a large receptive vocabulary helps your IQ. But children with a large receptive vocabulary when young tend to have future increases in other mental abilities. By contrast children who show high abilities in other areas when young do not show the same improvement.
The theory that I was told is that children who can understand complex verbal things find it easier to learn from our education system. And children can't learn to use complex language without first understanding it.
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
The research on development that I've encountered indicate that there are specific developmental periods where we are particularly receptive, and where our abilities tend to increase suddenly. Starting with a large receptive vocabulary seems to position you well to make the most of these.
When you're older, studying vocabulary is unlikely to be bad for you. But you don't have the same developmental spurts ahead to try to maximize. Furthermore vocabulary is less likely to be a barrier for adults than children.
For example my son right now loves ants. He is learning things about ants that other children his age would have trouble with because he understands words they don't. But he doesn't have a better vocabulary than most adults. Any literate adult who wants to learn what he is learning about ants can simply pick up material on ants and read it.
A predictor is something that you can measure and make predictions from in advance. Therefore by definition the eventual IQ at age 20 is not a predictor of future IQ for grade school children.
Now can we dispense with the semantic games?
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
Not indicative, predictive.
Receptive vocabulary is part of IQ. So of course having a large receptive vocabulary helps your IQ. But children with a large receptive vocabulary when young tend to have future increases in other mental abilities. By contrast children who show high abilities in other areas when young do not show the same improvement.
The theory that I was told is that children who can understand complex verbal things find it easier to learn from our education system. And children can't learn to use complex language without first understanding it.
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
The research on development that I've encountered indicate that there are specific developmental periods where we are particularly receptive, and where our abilities tend to increase suddenly. Starting with a large receptive vocabulary seems to position you well to make the most of these.
When you're older, studying vocabulary is unlikely to be bad for you. But you don't have the same developmental spurts ahead to try to maximize. Furthermore vocabulary is less likely to be a barrier for adults than children.
For example my son right now loves ants. He is learning things about ants that other children his age would have trouble with because he understands words they don't. But he doesn't have a better vocabulary than most adults. Any literate adult who wants to learn what he is learning about ants can simply pick up material on ants and read it.
The English language has an order of magnitude or so more words than other languages.
The study was primarily looking at language acquisition, not IQ. The researchers themselves did find that language mediated IQ somewhat, but IIRC the effects weren't especially noteworthy. I haven't read the book in a while though, so I can't remember the exact details.
How did the researchers determine causation? What if there is simply a gene for strong language which is responsible both for the parents' financial success and the child's academic success, and the extra words were simply a by product?
> How did the researchers determine causation? What if there is simply a gene for strong language which is responsible both for the parents' financial success and the child's academic success, and the extra words were simply a by product?
Yes, it might well be the classic confusion of cause and effect, but your argument will have no effect on the OP, who is a psychologist.
For reasons that may or may not be obvious, as part of their training, psychologists are made blind to the possibility that they might confuse cause and effect.
Yes, it might well be the classic confusion of cause and effect, but your argument will have no effect on the OP, who is a psychologist.
For reasons that may or may not be obvious, as part of their training, psychologists are made blind to the possibility that they might confuse cause and effect.
I think you may be blind to over generalisations... Can you show me the causal link between psychologists and this 'disorder'?
Sure, just read their professional literature -- it's a treasure trove of examples that confuse cause and effect. To a degree greater than any other field with scientific pretensions, psychologists ignore the possibility that they're reporting something that either has no objective reality, or is a case of correlation mining.
"Final Report: Stapel Affair Points to Bigger Problems in Social Psychology" : http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor...
Quote: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."
"Final Report: Stapel Affair Points to Bigger Problems in Social Psychology" : http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/11/final-repor...
Quote: "In their exhaustive final report about the fraud affair that rocked social psychology last year, three investigative panels today collectively find fault with the field itself. They paint an image of a "sloppy" research culture in which some scientists don't understand the essentials of statistics, journal-selected article reviewers encourage researchers to leave unwelcome data out of their papers, and even the most prestigious journals print results that are obviously too good to be true."
lutusp has strong anti-psychology sentiments. Conversations about it tend to be, uh, unproductive.
EDIT: It's a shame, because a lot of what he says about psychology and the flaws in the science is useful and interesting. Psychology has a lousy history of weak science. And any modern researcher could be making mistakes while striving for good science. So it's nice to hear from someone who does understand the importance of rigour.
EDIT: It's a shame, because a lot of what he says about psychology and the flaws in the science is useful and interesting. Psychology has a lousy history of weak science. And any modern researcher could be making mistakes while striving for good science. So it's nice to hear from someone who does understand the importance of rigour.
> lutusp has strong anti-psychology sentiments. Conversations about it tend to be, uh, unproductive.
You know, you could address the topic, not the participants. To fail at this is the very definition of counterproductive.
> Psychology has a lousy history of weak science.
Yep. People have asked me why I focus on psychology, since all fields have embarrassing episodes in which the principles of science are ignored. The answer is that, although psychologists have clinics, they don't have enough science to justify their existence.
Sociologists are equally unscientific, but they don't have clinics.
Doctors also have clinics, but they're much more scientific.
This makes psychology a conspicuous gap in the system meant to protect the public from charlatans. But the gap is closing -- the director of the NIMH, the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country, recently decided to pull the plug on the DSM and, by implication, psychiatry and psychology.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."
And that of the fields that created it.
http://xkcd.com/435/
You know, you could address the topic, not the participants. To fail at this is the very definition of counterproductive.
> Psychology has a lousy history of weak science.
Yep. People have asked me why I focus on psychology, since all fields have embarrassing episodes in which the principles of science are ignored. The answer is that, although psychologists have clinics, they don't have enough science to justify their existence.
Sociologists are equally unscientific, but they don't have clinics.
Doctors also have clinics, but they're much more scientific.
This makes psychology a conspicuous gap in the system meant to protect the public from charlatans. But the gap is closing -- the director of the NIMH, the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country, recently decided to pull the plug on the DSM and, by implication, psychiatry and psychology.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."
And that of the fields that created it.
http://xkcd.com/435/
Show me that the majority of psychology (and sociology) papers published in reputable journals are unscientific, then publish that in a reputable journal (then just post the link to that article as a response to this comment). As that is what you are claiming. Anything less and you are being hypocritical.
You are making a very big claim, so go and do the work to back it up.
You are making a very big claim, so go and do the work to back it up.
The studies cited in the Slate article come out of education and speech-disorders research. Those fields have problems too, but not all of the same ones as clinical psych.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The studies seem to be confusing causation and correlation. They seem to assuming that there must be an environmental cause for the differences in people's IQs. This may seem like a stupid assumption to make, but a lot of people in the social sciences take this as a given, even though the weight of evidence is strongly against it.
Perhaps I have missed something, but I would expect that, if they did not have ideological blinkers on they would be saying things like:
"We are taking particular care to separate environmental and genetic factors here by including adopted children, [identical] twins reared separately, other children raised by other than biological relatives".
But I see none of this at all here.
You may be interested to read "The Nurture Assumption" for a detailed analysis of the effect of parents on their children. The basic conclusion is that if you do not seriously abuse your children you don't affect them much one way or the other. Steve Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" is also relevant.
Perhaps I have missed something, but I would expect that, if they did not have ideological blinkers on they would be saying things like:
"We are taking particular care to separate environmental and genetic factors here by including adopted children, [identical] twins reared separately, other children raised by other than biological relatives".
But I see none of this at all here.
You may be interested to read "The Nurture Assumption" for a detailed analysis of the effect of parents on their children. The basic conclusion is that if you do not seriously abuse your children you don't affect them much one way or the other. Steve Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" is also relevant.
Today everyone can and usually does criticize "cause vs effect" whenever a study doesn't fit into his world view.
The discussion usually is omitted in journalistic articles anyway, so it's easy to say for readers that the scientists just "have no clue".
For me it looks like this research is looking for interventions. They are not just trying to understand intellectual development, but what can be done to improve early education. They succeeded at that. They didn't succeed at satisfying romantic and simplistic understandings about a genetic basis for intelligence.
The discussion usually is omitted in journalistic articles anyway, so it's easy to say for readers that the scientists just "have no clue".
For me it looks like this research is looking for interventions. They are not just trying to understand intellectual development, but what can be done to improve early education. They succeeded at that. They didn't succeed at satisfying romantic and simplistic understandings about a genetic basis for intelligence.
> twins reared separately
This is the gold-standard for testing genetic association, yes, but it is increasingly considered unethical. And is not perfect - twins are still likely to be placed in similar homes (typically both in foster homes, after all), which likely results in an overestimate of the genetic effect.
Modern statistics is about handling the data that is available: present-day researchers cannot rely on a statistically perfect study which would have to be generational and eugenic in scope.
This is the gold-standard for testing genetic association, yes, but it is increasingly considered unethical. And is not perfect - twins are still likely to be placed in similar homes (typically both in foster homes, after all), which likely results in an overestimate of the genetic effect.
Modern statistics is about handling the data that is available: present-day researchers cannot rely on a statistically perfect study which would have to be generational and eugenic in scope.
I also do not know if this is true. It seems safe to presume
that it is at least a mild benefit because it is cheap and easy to do.
If it were more costly in terms of child aide resourcing, then we'd have to look a lot closer at
whether we should divert resources to speak-to-the-child programs.
---
Some schooling like Steiner education actively de-emphasises speaking to your children until 6+.
Steiner teachers would not answer a child with the factual answer, but instead posing another question.
---
Some schooling like Steiner education actively de-emphasises speaking to your children until 6+.
Steiner teachers would not answer a child with the factual answer, but instead posing another question.
Child: "Mum, why do planes fly in the sky?"
Steiner Parent: "I Wonder?"
The original article also advocates facilitating the child to respond in detail, not simply monologues by a parent. I wouldn't call it de-emphasising speaking; the article describes pretty much the same actions as you do, but labels it 'emphasising', not 'de-emphasising'.
Sure, you need to hold your tongue often to provoke more dialogue (not finish the kids sentences instead of him/her, etc); but in the end it still means much more talking than the 'default' amount.
Sure, you need to hold your tongue often to provoke more dialogue (not finish the kids sentences instead of him/her, etc); but in the end it still means much more talking than the 'default' amount.
that seems to jive well with the article about not talking to your kid in directives:
"In low-income households, parents commonly speak to their children in simple commands, and participant Aneisha Newell said the week on directives was particularly significant to her. “Instead of saying, ‘go put on your shoes,’ I can say, ‘All right, it’s time to go. What else do you need? … That gives my child the chance to respond, and say, ‘shoes,’ ” said Newell, 25, who has a 4-year-old daughter and a 10-month-old son and works for a company providing recess supervision and after-school activities in Chicago Public Schools.
Newell said many of her friends and relatives think she’s crazy for talking to her daughter as if she’s an adult. “I can quote this: ‘Neisha, no one wants to sit and talk to the kids like they understand’ That’s basically the response I get."
(I hate that such a thought provoking article couldn't get a better discussion than a college freshman debate over nature v nurture)
in my experience that's one of the best take aways from the articles,
I find even really educated parents tend to give alot of commands to their kids, I would recommend mixing that up
my daughter just entered the 'why' stage,
the other day, I flipped it around and for 10 or so minutes, even thing she would ask say, I would ask her 'why?'
it was really facinating
I think it ended with:
"because I am a big girl"
"why"
"because I pee on the potty"
"ha ha, yeah I guess so"
----------------------------------
second thought
I've often heard that learning a second language forces you to relearn the basics of the english language
similarly, I think that putting thought in how to comminicate with little kids forces you how to relearn communication skills with all people
book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/038057000...
one of the big take aways from that book was not to invalidate your kids feelings, even if it seems silly or stupid to you
I find that to be a really useful comminication tip with adults too
and one the most people don't do a very good job with
"In low-income households, parents commonly speak to their children in simple commands, and participant Aneisha Newell said the week on directives was particularly significant to her. “Instead of saying, ‘go put on your shoes,’ I can say, ‘All right, it’s time to go. What else do you need? … That gives my child the chance to respond, and say, ‘shoes,’ ” said Newell, 25, who has a 4-year-old daughter and a 10-month-old son and works for a company providing recess supervision and after-school activities in Chicago Public Schools.
Newell said many of her friends and relatives think she’s crazy for talking to her daughter as if she’s an adult. “I can quote this: ‘Neisha, no one wants to sit and talk to the kids like they understand’ That’s basically the response I get."
(I hate that such a thought provoking article couldn't get a better discussion than a college freshman debate over nature v nurture)
in my experience that's one of the best take aways from the articles,
I find even really educated parents tend to give alot of commands to their kids, I would recommend mixing that up
my daughter just entered the 'why' stage,
the other day, I flipped it around and for 10 or so minutes, even thing she would ask say, I would ask her 'why?'
it was really facinating
I think it ended with:
"because I am a big girl"
"why"
"because I pee on the potty"
"ha ha, yeah I guess so"
----------------------------------
second thought
I've often heard that learning a second language forces you to relearn the basics of the english language
similarly, I think that putting thought in how to comminicate with little kids forces you how to relearn communication skills with all people
book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/038057000...
one of the big take aways from that book was not to invalidate your kids feelings, even if it seems silly or stupid to you
I find that to be a really useful comminication tip with adults too
and one the most people don't do a very good job with
You're right -- it feels true, which probably explains why it has so much staying power. Though the idea has been around for decades, it was really popularized by Hart and Risley in the 90s. However, it has been popping even more frequently over the past couple years.
A few months ago, when a similar article ran in the New York Times, Steven Pinked opined:
> The Blank Slate lives: Yet another story on parent-child correlations that dares not mention the g-word
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/322367630331740160
A few months ago, when a similar article ran in the New York Times, Steven Pinked opined:
> The Blank Slate lives: Yet another story on parent-child correlations that dares not mention the g-word
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/322367630331740160
It's weird how people are happy to say genetics plays a hand in the limits of human abilities, but when it comes to talk about intelligence, there are so many people in denial.
Perhaps it is just that you can't sell as many self help books if a lot of our brain's wiring is preordained.
Perhaps it is just that you can't sell as many self help books if a lot of our brain's wiring is preordained.
What you call "denial", I call reasonable doubt. And by that, I mean we don't have any concrete way to measure intelligence potential/capacity in the same way we can measure 12 inches. We know what 12 inches mean, but can anyone tell me what it means to be smart? What subjects do I need to learn to qualify? And to what level of detail? Why do we conclude Stephen Hawkins is smart? Who is an example of someone that isn't smart and could never become smart no matter how hard that person tried?
Barring any serious mental illness, I am of the belief anyone can learn whatever they want. The speed may vary, but I don't believe there is more information in the human-society than the human brain can contain.
...I don't believe there is more information in the human-society than the human brain can contain.
The Library of Congress would disagree with you. The most bothersome realization I had in college was that, no matter how smart I was, how fast I learned, how rich I got, or how much I studied, I could never learn everything I wanted to learn. There's simply too much knowledge and too little time.
The Library of Congress would disagree with you. The most bothersome realization I had in college was that, no matter how smart I was, how fast I learned, how rich I got, or how much I studied, I could never learn everything I wanted to learn. There's simply too much knowledge and too little time.
We do have concrete ways to measure intelligence, and have had them for over a hundred years. The literature on this subject is quite extensive.
We do not. Are there answers to the questions I presented?
You can't observe any exact thing and say "Right there! This person is exactly 49 intelliunits smart". IQ tests may give you an idea of one point of view of a measurement of intelligent is, but it is certainly not concrete like 12 inches is. Not concrete like we know 2 hydrogens & one oxygen is water. I think our obsession that everything must be measurable & categorized fails when it comes to the human mind. We are more than the sum of our measurable parts... for now. You can look at a car engine specification and know exactly the maximum speed given optimum conditions and assuming no mechanical failures. There's no such measurement for the human brain. You cannot know what my top performance is. At the absolute best, you can have a ball-park guess. You could end up being right or being way off.
Human personality contains any number of traits that can be measured. To pretend that pyschometrics does not exist is the equivalent of refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
> To pretend that pyschometrics does not exist is the equivalent of refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
But a lot of psychometrics is pure, unadulterated, grade A horse shit.
But a lot of psychometrics is pure, unadulterated, grade A horse shit.
[deleted]
> We do have concrete ways to measure intelligence, and have had them for over a hundred years.
Concrete, yes. Accurate, absolutely not. Any number of people have exploited the systematic errors in I.Q. testing for purely racist and political objectives.
> The literature on this subject is quite extensive.
Indeed it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
Concrete, yes. Accurate, absolutely not. Any number of people have exploited the systematic errors in I.Q. testing for purely racist and political objectives.
> The literature on this subject is quite extensive.
Indeed it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
The fact that something has been exploited for evil or trivial ends does not mean that the thing exploited is itself evil or trivial.
No, but it tells us that it's not rigorous enough to resist such exploitation. There's nothing inherently evil or morally wrong about sloppy measurements. That comes from its uses, not the thing itself.
Gould has been exposed as a fraud.
[deleted]
Citation needed.
Interesting how you never bothered to ask that while reading the fraudulent book itself.
It's like skimming a poorly-researched paper on vaccines, taking it as gospel, proceeding to claim that they cause autism, and yet reflexively responding with "citation needed" to anyone that dare call into question your insane ideas.
It's like skimming a poorly-researched paper on vaccines, taking it as gospel, proceeding to claim that they cause autism, and yet reflexively responding with "citation needed" to anyone that dare call into question your insane ideas.
> Interesting how you never bothered to ask that while reading the fraudulent book itself.
This is your evidence that Gould is a fraud? Nice dodge, but scientists and educated people will notice you avoided your responsibility to back up your words with evidence.
This is your evidence that Gould is a fraud? Nice dodge, but scientists and educated people will notice you avoided your responsibility to back up your words with evidence.
And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics.
Here, since you apparently are completely inept and mind-killed: in Google, punch in 'Gould fraud'. The very first link is to a Nature.com page: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_f...
Here, since you apparently are completely inept and mind-killed: in Google, punch in 'Gould fraud'. The very first link is to a Nature.com page: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_f...
> And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics.
The basics of IQ testing and its many misuses? Gould didn't invent this topic, and he doesn't define it. You remarks about Gould and IQ testing remind me of the creationists who think evolution was Darwin's private fantasy. If you take away Gould entirely, you still have any number of terrible examples of misuse of IQ testing for racist and other deplorable objectives.
Obviously psychologists are defensive about IQ testing (they should be), and Gould made himself an easy target. But this substitutes substance with ad hominem, a mode of argument you appear to prefer.
The basics of IQ testing and its many misuses? Gould didn't invent this topic, and he doesn't define it. You remarks about Gould and IQ testing remind me of the creationists who think evolution was Darwin's private fantasy. If you take away Gould entirely, you still have any number of terrible examples of misuse of IQ testing for racist and other deplorable objectives.
Obviously psychologists are defensive about IQ testing (they should be), and Gould made himself an easy target. But this substitutes substance with ad hominem, a mode of argument you appear to prefer.
That's pretty big talk from a dude who couldn't find the first link in Google, and tried to wave off any discussion of Gould's fraud as equivalent to all the crackpots talking about Einstein.
Simply Google "gould" and "fraud" and you will have hours of fascinating reading.
Yep. That works for "Einstein" and "fraud" also. In fact, it works for any well-known name in any field.
Gould missed things that happened after the writing of Mismeasure, and ignored some later developments that challenged aspects of his original work, but he made a number of important and legitimate points about IQ testing and its abuses, points that have stood the test of time.
Gould missed things that happened after the writing of Mismeasure, and ignored some later developments that challenged aspects of his original work, but he made a number of important and legitimate points about IQ testing and its abuses, points that have stood the test of time.
What's "intelligence"?
It's the thing that blank slatists say can be improved by a better environment when they're not busy claiming that it can't be measured.
So you don't actually want to address a legitimate question.
It's well-defined in the academic literature, though I'm guessing you haven't bothered to look.
No it's not, but please feel free to list the literature to which you're so confidently referring.
Intelligence, like beauty, it is qualitative, not quantitative, which means at some level it is impossible to define.
Intelligence, like beauty, it is qualitative, not quantitative, which means at some level it is impossible to define.
[deleted]
No, I don't want to address a question posed in bad faith.
This is a reasonable perspective. But people other than the parent sometimes read comments! I'll do my best at a level-zero explanation of "intelligence" in the literature:
Let's start by modestly noting that I routinely got the top score on Latin tests in high school (this was worth a small box of chocolates!). Someone applying the concept of "intelligence" might predict that I would also do well in math class. The traditional explanation for this given by Latin teachers is that learning Latin trains the mind to think logically, and getting high scores on Latin tests means that the training has taken. The intelligence-based explanation is that Latin and math are two of many tasks subject to the influence of g, the "general factor".
Moving to a more general level, the observation is that for many, many tests that appear to involve "mental abilities" to a greater or lesser degree, a person's score on any one of them is predictive of the same person's score on all the others. It's rare to find someone who is good at one and bad at another; instead, people tend to be uniformly good or uniformly bad (known in the literature as the phenomenon of the "positive manifold"). This suggests that there's one quality driving all the results, which we can call "intelligence", since that's the label commonly applied to people who tend to do well on those types of tests.
Corrections are of course welcome.
Let's start by modestly noting that I routinely got the top score on Latin tests in high school (this was worth a small box of chocolates!). Someone applying the concept of "intelligence" might predict that I would also do well in math class. The traditional explanation for this given by Latin teachers is that learning Latin trains the mind to think logically, and getting high scores on Latin tests means that the training has taken. The intelligence-based explanation is that Latin and math are two of many tasks subject to the influence of g, the "general factor".
Moving to a more general level, the observation is that for many, many tests that appear to involve "mental abilities" to a greater or lesser degree, a person's score on any one of them is predictive of the same person's score on all the others. It's rare to find someone who is good at one and bad at another; instead, people tend to be uniformly good or uniformly bad (known in the literature as the phenomenon of the "positive manifold"). This suggests that there's one quality driving all the results, which we can call "intelligence", since that's the label commonly applied to people who tend to do well on those types of tests.
Corrections are of course welcome.
The question isn't, "Is there intelligence?" The question is "What is intelligence in terms of a definition?"
You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty". That's fine. Beauty exists. But aren't you almost admitting that it is a quality and therefore subject to what evaluates it? In other words, if 5 people call someone beautiful or ugly, are they beautiful? If someone is good at Latin and languages, does that mean they are intelligent? And if someone is not good at Latin, does that mean they are not?
Further, how many people do you have to find to say you are beautiful to be you are "defined" as beautiful? That's not a definition, that's just further confidence-building; the more you have the more confident you can be. But that still doesn't mean there's a point where you can say it is definitively so, and therefore you don't have a true definition.
You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty". That's fine. Beauty exists. But aren't you almost admitting that it is a quality and therefore subject to what evaluates it? In other words, if 5 people call someone beautiful or ugly, are they beautiful? If someone is good at Latin and languages, does that mean they are intelligent? And if someone is not good at Latin, does that mean they are not?
Further, how many people do you have to find to say you are beautiful to be you are "defined" as beautiful? That's not a definition, that's just further confidence-building; the more you have the more confident you can be. But that still doesn't mean there's a point where you can say it is definitively so, and therefore you don't have a true definition.
> You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty".
That's not it.
1. Imagine that we have a system we're happy with for quantifying people's beauty.
2. Imagine that we discover that, in a sample population of 100,000 or so, higher beauty predicts lower willingness to wait in line, lower frisbee golf scores, and redder tablecloths in the home.
The idea here is that from (2) we conclude that (3) there is a single variable, "beauty", responsible for your rating in (1), but also responsible for your frisbee golf scores and the color of your home tablecloths. Now, in addition to using the system in (1), we could in theory rate people's beauty by visiting their home and checking the tablecloths, or by checking a frisbee golf score sheet (lest this sound ridiculous, I'll observe that a real test of intelligence in children consists of the instructions "draw a man", "draw a woman", and "draw yourself": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw-A-Person_Test).
In the literature, "intelligence" or g refers to this hidden variable that explains performance across all the various IQ-driven tasks. To discredit the idea, you'd want to find a test which correlated positively with one well-accepted IQ test, and negatively (or zero) with another. Another commenter pointed out that, since we don't have a specific physical metric for intelligence, we can't rate people as having a certain number of "intelliunits". That's correct, and it means that an intelligence-discrediting test could have pretty much any content at all; all that's required is that it be positively related to one existing IQ test and negatively related to another. This turns out to be extremely difficult.
This somewhat murky nature of intelligence as defined means that you're rated in terms of a comparison to the population (we can't say "you have 70 intelliunits", but we do know how to determine that you're smarter than Bob, Carol, and Tom, but dumber than Jennifer). An IQ of 115 means, approximately, that you're smarter than 5/6 of the reference population, which is conceptually all European whites.
That's not it.
1. Imagine that we have a system we're happy with for quantifying people's beauty.
2. Imagine that we discover that, in a sample population of 100,000 or so, higher beauty predicts lower willingness to wait in line, lower frisbee golf scores, and redder tablecloths in the home.
The idea here is that from (2) we conclude that (3) there is a single variable, "beauty", responsible for your rating in (1), but also responsible for your frisbee golf scores and the color of your home tablecloths. Now, in addition to using the system in (1), we could in theory rate people's beauty by visiting their home and checking the tablecloths, or by checking a frisbee golf score sheet (lest this sound ridiculous, I'll observe that a real test of intelligence in children consists of the instructions "draw a man", "draw a woman", and "draw yourself": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw-A-Person_Test).
In the literature, "intelligence" or g refers to this hidden variable that explains performance across all the various IQ-driven tasks. To discredit the idea, you'd want to find a test which correlated positively with one well-accepted IQ test, and negatively (or zero) with another. Another commenter pointed out that, since we don't have a specific physical metric for intelligence, we can't rate people as having a certain number of "intelliunits". That's correct, and it means that an intelligence-discrediting test could have pretty much any content at all; all that's required is that it be positively related to one existing IQ test and negatively related to another. This turns out to be extremely difficult.
This somewhat murky nature of intelligence as defined means that you're rated in terms of a comparison to the population (we can't say "you have 70 intelliunits", but we do know how to determine that you're smarter than Bob, Carol, and Tom, but dumber than Jennifer). An IQ of 115 means, approximately, that you're smarter than 5/6 of the reference population, which is conceptually all European whites.
>But people other than the parent sometimes read comments!
Well I read it and I thought it was interesting. Thanks.
Well I read it and I thought it was interesting. Thanks.
It might be that intelligence is a plastic ability ("software"), while many other abilities are less plastic ("hardware"). We agree that the human brain is highly adaptable, people loose half their brains in early age and can still function. It doesn't seem that far fetched that such small differences as those between someone bright and someone not so bright is about adaptation. And perhaps the right type of curiosity.
Intelligence is a mixture of upbringing and genetics. If you're raised by a pack of wolves in the woods, you'll probably be rock dumb by all measures, regardless of your DNA.
> If you're raised by a pack of wolves in the woods, you'll probably be rock dumb by all measures, regardless of your DNA.
Depends on how you define "dumb". I bet you'd be insanely good at hunting and eating enough prey to survive the winter.
Depends on how you define "dumb". I bet you'd be insanely good at hunting and eating enough prey to survive the winter.
Going a step further, you have to wonder if the genetic correlates of IQ (or g) affect survival and health in feral children.
I can't remember where I read it, but I know that hunting and tracking skills don't correlate very well with g. Though surprisingly, marksmanship does.
[deleted]
If a wolf is raised by humans, how much will that improve its IQ score?
> Yet another story on parent-child correlations that dares not mention the g-word
Except for that the Hart & Risley study measured the impact of genetics, and found it to be insignificant. Maybe Pinker should try actually reading the studies he's criticizing instead of just reading about them in the paper.
Except for that the Hart & Risley study measured the impact of genetics, and found it to be insignificant. Maybe Pinker should try actually reading the studies he's criticizing instead of just reading about them in the paper.
If I am understanding your argument correctly in context, based on what you quoted, you are saying that the impact of genetics on g was found to be insignificant in the Hart & Risley study. That objectively seems not to be the case. First, the measurement outcome of the study was language use. They didn't attempt to measure IQ or g except when the children were 3. As far as I can tell from references, without access to the primary source, they did not perform any IQ tests on the children at later dates. I verified this with google searches within the book which only returned mentions of a test given at age three, but this is not iron-clad given google books' search mechanism. As far as I can tell, any claims that IQ was shown to be increased by the intervention are based on the very high correlation found between IQ and vocabulary at that age three test. Second, they only evaluated children (for language use) until the age of 9-10, which would be broadly consistent with the consensus understanding of psychometricians, which is that the heritability of IQ increases throughout childhood (implying in simplified language that non-heritable environmental factors have lesser correlation with IQ at adulthood, even if they have a greater impact during childhood).
The study wasn't designed to measure the impact of genetics on g, so we shouldn't be surprised that it fails to measure it. It was designed to measure the impact of in-home language use on vocabulary acquisition, which it clearly does well. That effect has been further validated in meta-analysis, e.g. [1].
1: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sbneuman/pdf/marulisNeuman.pd...
The study wasn't designed to measure the impact of genetics on g, so we shouldn't be surprised that it fails to measure it. It was designed to measure the impact of in-home language use on vocabulary acquisition, which it clearly does well. That effect has been further validated in meta-analysis, e.g. [1].
1: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sbneuman/pdf/marulisNeuman.pd...
The study looked at the impact of genetics on language acquisition, and found that at most the contribution of IQ to language acquisition could only be a few percent. They were not really looking at the impact of genetics on IQ, although I think this is mentioned at one point and they say genetics plays a larger part here.
> Except for that the Hart & Risley study measured the impact of genetics, and found it to be insignificant.
Congratulations, you've outed yourself as someone who has based all of their conclusions on a couple of feel good pop-science articles.
Congratulations, you've outed yourself as someone who has based all of their conclusions on a couple of feel good pop-science articles.
Just because genetics is important doesn't mean that talking doesn't help - and the difference is that talking is in the parents' control.
If there are genetic components to intelligence, presumably you can't do anything about them after you've had kids so what do they matter?
I've always believed smart (developed capability) is taught, and genius (typically narrow high level mental capability) is born. And that all people at birth, except the relative few born with mental handicaps, are capable of being smart.
A 100 to 115 IQ maxed out on potential and perspiration will get you very far in life.
A 100 to 115 IQ maxed out on potential and perspiration will get you very far in life.
A 100 to 115 IQ maxed out on potential will get you very far in life, but not as far as a 130 to 145 IQ maxed out on potential will.
Not really. There's an upper limit to the survival value of intelligence. Not to oversimplify, but that limit is reached when the person says, "What? I should add to the world's problems by having children?"
In all seriousness, the fact that the average I.Q. is located where it is, tells us that's the outcome natural selection blindly chose. And natural selection is always right.
In all seriousness, the fact that the average I.Q. is located where it is, tells us that's the outcome natural selection blindly chose. And natural selection is always right.
Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.
That's how nature works. We don't get to decide for nature, she decides for us.
Paul Graham and Steve Jobs are/were both fathers.
I thought jobs was a father of one, but a quick look on wiki shows I was mistaken. But I'm pretty sure pg is, and probably always will be at his age and the age of h his wife. One child is better than none but still fails from a reproductive fitness point of view. You only pass on half of your genome to each kid, so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.
> ... so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.
In modern times, ideas are more influential than children. If you doubt this, try to tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look charming in group photographs.
Would you rather have two children, or influence the thinking of a million people -- and their children? Which has the greatest effect on evolution?
In modern times, ideas are more influential than children. If you doubt this, try to tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look charming in group photographs.
Would you rather have two children, or influence the thinking of a million people -- and their children? Which has the greatest effect on evolution?
Wait, you aren't saying Steve Jobs was a genius, are you? I worked with Steve and no, that's not how most people would describe him.
Just for the record.
Just for the record.
[deleted]
The average IQ produced by natural selection depends on the environment. There is no ideal level of intelligence apart from environment. If the Earth had a uniform climate, terrain, and so on from pole to pole, this presumably would not be the case.
> If the Earth had a uniform climate, terrain, and so on from pole to pole, this presumably would not be the case.
I think that would also produce an optimal IQ, just a different one. But all IQs, indeed all traits of living organisms, ultimately derive from the degree to which they contribute to fitness.
I think that would also produce an optimal IQ, just a different one. But all IQs, indeed all traits of living organisms, ultimately derive from the degree to which they contribute to fitness.
The process of expressing statements creates stronger synaptic connections (relative to reading statements). Communication is an essential part of learning and retaining ideas.
FWIW language gives children a tool with which they can discuss and more importantly reason about abstract concepts. The sooner you acquire a rich and varied vocabulary the sooner you can form a rich understanding about the phenomena in the world around you. Since kids learn fastest when they are young and that slows with age, a strong grasp of language means that they can absorb and understand more abstractions sooner. Measures of betweenness, distance, centrality and distance for nodes in a child's mental graph of abstractions are all likely to be better when you have a richer vocabulary at a young age. Even edges between abstractions can be linguistic abstractions like similes and metaphors, giving a child a quickness in recall of well understood abstractions to aid in the processing and understanding of novel concepts.
This is discussed by Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate.
I feel like every time a science article gets attention just because it "feels true" and which is based on just another retrospective cohort study (which can't untangle causation) it sends the wrong message to the public about what real substantive scientific research is like/needs to be like.
I've read many articles recently that make similar claims. Chapter 10 of NurtureShock talks about this. Anecdotally, the idea seems to be growing in popularity idea among my fellow parents.
One way to capitalize on this would be to create a mobile app which functions like a pedometer, except it counts the number of words you speak to your child. Parents could talk to their kids during playtime, and the device would listen in and use natural language processing to interpret the conversation. Parents would later get a report on the frequency, complexity, and novelty of the words used. They could chart progress over time.
One way to capitalize on this would be to create a mobile app which functions like a pedometer, except it counts the number of words you speak to your child. Parents could talk to their kids during playtime, and the device would listen in and use natural language processing to interpret the conversation. Parents would later get a report on the frequency, complexity, and novelty of the words used. They could chart progress over time.
As I read your comment I was afraid you were going to suggest an app that speaks to your child for you, but I was pleasantly surprised. I like the idea.
why are you afraid of that idea?
The same goes for if you want to teach your dog a crazy number of things casually (upstairs, downstairs, names of people, names of toys, go-to-crate, names of rooms, difference between food and water bowls, ...).
the real deep thinkers, are not necessary good at conversation I believe, actually there is a saying "the _real_ smart people don't speak much, and they usually look dumb"
sorry I did not bother to read the article, the title stopped me from reading it.
>I did not bother to read the article
This is probably why you're not a 'real think er', and no I don't really agree with the article either.
This is probably why you're not a 'real think er', and no I don't really agree with the article either.
Probably any conversation is good, but conversation that carefully fuels curiosity is fun and it also induces a self-sustaining habit:
http://www.jonathanmugan.com/CuriosityCycle/
Uh.
"Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination." — L.W.
But in the end, when you've got a government solicited to diminish your powers, nothing beats a Classical education.
"Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination." — L.W.
But in the end, when you've got a government solicited to diminish your powers, nothing beats a Classical education.
My boss's son is one of the smartest 18 month old kids I have ever met. He communication levels are through the roof, and for words he might not be able to say, or things he might not be able to express, he knows rudimentary sign language to communicate, e.g., he has a hand signal for "I'm tired" or "I'm hungry" -- he almost never has to cry to show he needs something.
It's really quite impressive.
It's really quite impressive.
Do you have children? I know ostensibly that is irrelevant but what you're describing is good and impressive but it's probably not as uncommon as you think. Baby sign language is pretty popular in the parenting world. Actually, many babies can do that at much earlier ages. Not to detract anything, just saying ... :)
No kidding. One of the first epiphanies parents have is the fact that their children are as smart as they are -- all they lack is experience. :)
my 15-month daughter runs to her high chair when she's hungry. sometimes she skips the chair and runs directly to the fridge. i don't think it's unusual, i hear the same things from my friends.
one related anectode: my boss' 3-yo son said to him, 'dad, i'm not stupid, i'm just small' :)
one related anectode: my boss' 3-yo son said to him, 'dad, i'm not stupid, i'm just small' :)
What took your daughter so long?
Quite a few pets sit by their kitchen feeding bowls when they get hungry. They learn to do this within a lot less time than 15 months.
Quite a few pets sit by their kitchen feeding bowls when they get hungry. They learn to do this within a lot less time than 15 months.
didn't say she just started doing that, just that she's 15 months. she was doing this for at least a couple of months now.
children really grow faster than adults comprehend...
children really grow faster than adults comprehend...
Conversation or vocabulary? It seems to me they conflate the two simply because conversation time is correlated with higher vocabulary. Do the studies control for this?
My parents like to tell the storiy of my childhood. Basically, I used to think I was an adult (despite being 5) and talk to everyone. The best part, is that I _was_ treated like an adult, and am pretty intelligent these days as well :) More importantly, it gave me confidence from an early age. That's the best gift I think a child can be given, especially one that is into "fringe" pursuits.
I cringed when I read you saying 'am pretty intelligent these days'
Einstein, Euler, Reimann realized that the subjects and challenges were truly important, not their intelligence. Solve life, don't inflate self.
Nothing I work on is truly important. :)
And I actually mean that. Not yet. Soon, perhaps, but not now. And I said "pretty intelligent", not that I was up there with the greats. I find it interesting you took that from my post!
And I actually mean that. Not yet. Soon, perhaps, but not now. And I said "pretty intelligent", not that I was up there with the greats. I find it interesting you took that from my post!
Saying that you are intelligent is just so cringe-worthy. If you want to make a point about yourself give two small examples of what you've achieved and let the reader form an opinion.
"At home there was a game that all the parents played with their children. It was called, What Did You See? Mara was about Dann’s age when she was first called into her father’s room one evening, where he sat in his big carved and coloured chair. He said to her, ‘And now we are going to play a game. What was the thing you liked best today?’
At first she chattered: ‘I played with my cousin . . . I was out with Shera in the garden . . . I made a stone house.’ And then he had said, ‘Tell me about the house.’ And she said, ‘I made a house of the stones that come from the river bed.’ And he said, ‘Now tell me about the stones.’ And she said, ‘They were mostly smooth stones, but some were sharp and had different shapes.’ ‘Tell me what the stones looked like, what colour they were, what did they feel like.’
And by the time the game ended she knew why some stones were smooth and some sharp and why they were different colours, some cracked, some so small they were almost sand. She knew how rivers rolled stones along and how some of them came from far away. She knew that the river had once been twice as wide as it was now. There seemed no end to what she knew, and yet her father had not told her much, but kept asking questions so she found the answers in herself. Like, ‘Why do you think some stones are smooth and round and some still sharp?’ And she thought and replied, ‘Some have been in the water a long time, rubbing against other stones, and some have only just been broken off bigger stones.’ Every evening, either her father or her mother called her in for What Did You See? She loved it. During the day, playing outside or with her toys, alone or with other children, she found herself thinking, Now notice what you are doing, so you can tell them tonight what you saw.
She had thought that the game did not change; but then one evening she was there when her little brother was first asked, What Did You See? and she knew just how much the game had changed for her. Because now it was not just What Did You See? but: What were you thinking? What made you think that? Are you sure that thought is true?
When she became seven, not long ago, and it was time for school, she was in a room with about twenty children – all from her family or from the Big Family – and the teacher, her mother’s sister, said, ‘And now the game: What Did You See?’
Most of the children had played the game since they were tiny; but some had not, and they were pitied by the ones that had, for they did not notice much and were often silent when the others said, ‘I saw . . .’, whatever it was. Mara was at first upset that this game played with so many at once was simpler, more babyish, than when she was with her parents. It was like going right back to the earliest stages of the game: ‘What did you see?’ ‘I saw a bird.’ ‘What kind of a bird?’ ‘It was black and white and had a yellow beak.’ ‘What shape of beak? Why do you think the beak is shaped like that?’
Then she saw what she was supposed to be understanding: Why did one child see this and the other that? Why did it sometimes need several children to see everything about a stone or a bird or a person?"
--Doris Lessing, "Mara and Dann" (Hat tip: http://lesswrong.com/lw/43w/rationality_quotes_february_2011...)
At first she chattered: ‘I played with my cousin . . . I was out with Shera in the garden . . . I made a stone house.’ And then he had said, ‘Tell me about the house.’ And she said, ‘I made a house of the stones that come from the river bed.’ And he said, ‘Now tell me about the stones.’ And she said, ‘They were mostly smooth stones, but some were sharp and had different shapes.’ ‘Tell me what the stones looked like, what colour they were, what did they feel like.’
And by the time the game ended she knew why some stones were smooth and some sharp and why they were different colours, some cracked, some so small they were almost sand. She knew how rivers rolled stones along and how some of them came from far away. She knew that the river had once been twice as wide as it was now. There seemed no end to what she knew, and yet her father had not told her much, but kept asking questions so she found the answers in herself. Like, ‘Why do you think some stones are smooth and round and some still sharp?’ And she thought and replied, ‘Some have been in the water a long time, rubbing against other stones, and some have only just been broken off bigger stones.’ Every evening, either her father or her mother called her in for What Did You See? She loved it. During the day, playing outside or with her toys, alone or with other children, she found herself thinking, Now notice what you are doing, so you can tell them tonight what you saw.
She had thought that the game did not change; but then one evening she was there when her little brother was first asked, What Did You See? and she knew just how much the game had changed for her. Because now it was not just What Did You See? but: What were you thinking? What made you think that? Are you sure that thought is true?
When she became seven, not long ago, and it was time for school, she was in a room with about twenty children – all from her family or from the Big Family – and the teacher, her mother’s sister, said, ‘And now the game: What Did You See?’
Most of the children had played the game since they were tiny; but some had not, and they were pitied by the ones that had, for they did not notice much and were often silent when the others said, ‘I saw . . .’, whatever it was. Mara was at first upset that this game played with so many at once was simpler, more babyish, than when she was with her parents. It was like going right back to the earliest stages of the game: ‘What did you see?’ ‘I saw a bird.’ ‘What kind of a bird?’ ‘It was black and white and had a yellow beak.’ ‘What shape of beak? Why do you think the beak is shaped like that?’
Then she saw what she was supposed to be understanding: Why did one child see this and the other that? Why did it sometimes need several children to see everything about a stone or a bird or a person?"
--Doris Lessing, "Mara and Dann" (Hat tip: http://lesswrong.com/lw/43w/rationality_quotes_february_2011...)
Half tongue-in-cheek, half serious, but all I could think of while reading the first paragraphs was, "Playing all of those text adventure games has trained me to be a better parent!"
But then, if children were born smart, because they have smart parents, it would follow that more, and more complex, conversations would ensue. Just pointing out the obvious.
Establishing causation would require some pretty grievous, and expensive, social intervention. "Stolen generations" or similar would be the accusation decades after the inevitable failure of such policies.
But keep dreaming, Slate.
Establishing causation would require some pretty grievous, and expensive, social intervention. "Stolen generations" or similar would be the accusation decades after the inevitable failure of such policies.
But keep dreaming, Slate.
I am disappointed when I hear the term "socio-economic factors" in discussions of education. First, as if "economic" wasn't enough you add in "socio" to create a term that means "factors coming from every part of a person's life". Of course there are socio-economic factors.
But I dislike it particularly because often it feels like a statement: we don't know what the causes are (which is why we make the weakest possible claim by using this incredibly expansive category), and we aren't going to try to find out.
So I particularly appreciate this program, and the research it is based upon. We have a pretty well identified phenomena: talking a lot to kids, at a young age, helps them. A lot. And some people talk to their kids a lot more than other people. We should delight in this finding! We have a pretty clear way to identify a lot of kids whose lives could be greatly improved through changes in their parents' behavior, and that change is widely accessible.
It's this kind of finding that penetrates "socio-economic factors" and in the process identifies something actionable.
But I dislike it particularly because often it feels like a statement: we don't know what the causes are (which is why we make the weakest possible claim by using this incredibly expansive category), and we aren't going to try to find out.
So I particularly appreciate this program, and the research it is based upon. We have a pretty well identified phenomena: talking a lot to kids, at a young age, helps them. A lot. And some people talk to their kids a lot more than other people. We should delight in this finding! We have a pretty clear way to identify a lot of kids whose lives could be greatly improved through changes in their parents' behavior, and that change is widely accessible.
It's this kind of finding that penetrates "socio-economic factors" and in the process identifies something actionable.
Some of the best hackers &| hustlers I know come from average to slightly-below average backgrounds. The biggest challenge for anyone, given any background, is what they tell themselves they can't do.
In addition to talking, it's important that the parent is a decent human-being. An awful person interacting with a kid probably does more harm than good. I don't think there's much correlation with decency and socioeconomics.
--
"Give me guys that are poor, smart, and hungry and no feelings." - Gordon Gekko
In addition to talking, it's important that the parent is a decent human-being. An awful person interacting with a kid probably does more harm than good. I don't think there's much correlation with decency and socioeconomics.
--
"Give me guys that are poor, smart, and hungry and no feelings." - Gordon Gekko
When you say that some of the best hacker and hustlers that you know come from unimpressive backgrounds, does "some" mean "most" or "a few" or "hardly any"?
Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor.
To provide just one example (out of many, I'm sure): I was born into a very poor (far below poverty level) working class family that was extremely techno-phobic. Despite being actively discouraged almost throughout my childhood of pursuing an intellectual career, I always had an intrinsic motivation and desire to learn and create tech-related things. This ultimately lead to where I am now, as a software engineer (and I'm definitely the only one like this from my family, a clear outlier).
To this day I can't come up with a single environmental influence that explains this -- and believe me, I've tried. I don't mean for this example to detract from the positive message of the article -- that talking to children is very beneficial to their cognitive development (obviously) -- but hopefully to demonstrate that it's a lot more complex than just environmental factors.
To provide just one example (out of many, I'm sure): I was born into a very poor (far below poverty level) working class family that was extremely techno-phobic. Despite being actively discouraged almost throughout my childhood of pursuing an intellectual career, I always had an intrinsic motivation and desire to learn and create tech-related things. This ultimately lead to where I am now, as a software engineer (and I'm definitely the only one like this from my family, a clear outlier).
To this day I can't come up with a single environmental influence that explains this -- and believe me, I've tried. I don't mean for this example to detract from the positive message of the article -- that talking to children is very beneficial to their cognitive development (obviously) -- but hopefully to demonstrate that it's a lot more complex than just environmental factors.
Unfortunately, we live in an age where its politically incorrect to remotely hint at genetic determinism. Men and women are exactly the same. Dumb people and the ultra smart are exactly the same. Articles that contradict this don't get much traction in the media and certainly don't get on the front page of HN.
We're probably a generation or two away before we can accurately look at these issues without activist groups and other political groups declaring them invalid because of misplaced idealism.
Somewhere there's a modern day Galileo saying "but some children are born smart!"
We're probably a generation or two away before we can accurately look at these issues without activist groups and other political groups declaring them invalid because of misplaced idealism.
Somewhere there's a modern day Galileo saying "but some children are born smart!"
The problem is subtler and worse than simple censorship. A person who concludes the "wrong" casual effect from the data is branded a racist or at least under suspicion. A person who concludes the "right" causal effect might face criticism but at least is not in danger of being labeled an evil person. Such a lopsided set of incentives creates a very strong bias. In my opinion this bias is much stronger than the bias ("racism") that it evolved in response to.
You probably wouldn't have an intrinsic motivation and desire to be a biologist. You just happened to pick up technology, thought it was cool and enjoyed it.
Besides, humans tend to do things they are forbidden to. Your parents didn't stop you from studying "tech-related things" did they? Well, maybe they did but they must have stopped it once they knew it was futile. Otherwise you wouldn't be what you are now.
If your parents tied you up, beat you up etc. to forbid you from studying tech, then that's an environmental factor. Them not doing so is also an environmental factor.
Believing something is predestined is bullshit. Genetics might give you a better memory, but it doesn't make you a hard worker. Your success depends on your values, priorities and motivation to do so.
Besides, humans tend to do things they are forbidden to. Your parents didn't stop you from studying "tech-related things" did they? Well, maybe they did but they must have stopped it once they knew it was futile. Otherwise you wouldn't be what you are now.
If your parents tied you up, beat you up etc. to forbid you from studying tech, then that's an environmental factor. Them not doing so is also an environmental factor.
Believing something is predestined is bullshit. Genetics might give you a better memory, but it doesn't make you a hard worker. Your success depends on your values, priorities and motivation to do so.
You might be interpreting the "claim" more rigidly than is warranted in a popular publication. Personally, I think children are born potentially smart, but intelligence must be developed constantly in my experience. I have found that many people limit their own intelligence by not stressing themselves, and I suspect the same is true for outside influences. There is a reason people associate bookishness with intelligence and I don't think it's a one-way relationship. I have known a few people whom I believe are not potentially smart, but not that many.
Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly.
I don't think it is equivalent. Saying "Children aren't born smart" means no more than that; they don't come out of the womb smart. The degree to which the smartness they develop will depend on an innate potential to be smart and the degree to which it will depend on environmental factors is not addressed by the statement.
I don't think it is equivalent. Saying "Children aren't born smart" means no more than that; they don't come out of the womb smart. The degree to which the smartness they develop will depend on an innate potential to be smart and the degree to which it will depend on environmental factors is not addressed by the statement.
Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment"
No it isn't. Think of a young mind as putty. When born, it's just a blob of putty. Children aren't born intelligent. As the child grows, the environment shapes the putty. Some children have different putty than other kids- maybe a little more, a little less, a little firmer, a little more plastic.
Thus, intelligence is determined both by what you have to start with, and your environment. You don't have to be born with intelligence, to be born possessing the raw materials to create great intelligence.
It's not like Usain Bolt was born the fastest runner in the world. He became fast, partly thanks to what he had to work with, and partly thanks to his environment. That's the point here.
No it isn't. Think of a young mind as putty. When born, it's just a blob of putty. Children aren't born intelligent. As the child grows, the environment shapes the putty. Some children have different putty than other kids- maybe a little more, a little less, a little firmer, a little more plastic.
Thus, intelligence is determined both by what you have to start with, and your environment. You don't have to be born with intelligence, to be born possessing the raw materials to create great intelligence.
It's not like Usain Bolt was born the fastest runner in the world. He became fast, partly thanks to what he had to work with, and partly thanks to his environment. That's the point here.
To see the effects of environment you only need to go to a 3rd world country... Reading is a skill that is generally taught (and very difficult to learn without being taught), so when someone is illiterate, it greatly affects their ability to learn anything. Likewise, people CAN overcome their disadvantages, depending on how severe the disadvantages and how motivated (overcoming negative parents is easier than overcoming illiteracy and being forced to labour in a sweatshop at 10 years of age)...
This article is merely a less extreme example of how taking an active interest in your child's education can help them develop, which is 100% true. For me, personally, I could read/write/speak 2 languages at 4 years of age, in large part thanks to my early childhood environment.
This article is merely a less extreme example of how taking an active interest in your child's education can help them develop, which is 100% true. For me, personally, I could read/write/speak 2 languages at 4 years of age, in large part thanks to my early childhood environment.
It is "Nurture over Nature" approach. From wiki about Laszlo Polgar, father of Polgar sisters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r :
>He is interested in the proper method of rearing children, believing that "geniuses are made, not born".
>He home-schooled their three daughters, primarily in chess, and all three went on to become strong players. An early result was Susan's winning the Budapest Chess Championship for girls under 11 at the age of four. Also his daughter, Judit, could defeat him at chess when she was just five.
Judit became the best female chess player ever and was the youngest GM back then when she was 15.
>He is interested in the proper method of rearing children, believing that "geniuses are made, not born".
>He home-schooled their three daughters, primarily in chess, and all three went on to become strong players. An early result was Susan's winning the Budapest Chess Championship for girls under 11 at the age of four. Also his daughter, Judit, could defeat him at chess when she was just five.
Judit became the best female chess player ever and was the youngest GM back then when she was 15.
I read it as the author of that quote explicitly _choosing_ to say that to make the message simpler to his target audience. I think the author fully understands that in reality it's a mix of both nurture and nature but there's plenty of unfulfilled potential in those kids so telling a little fib will help to push them to maximize their potential...and right now no one can definitively predict what that max is just by looking at their genetics
Pinker, in "The Blank Slate", cites research that shows that in the nature-vs-nurture debate it appears to be 50/50. Interestingly, of the nurture half, peer group has a much larger influence than parents.
Given that, I'm curious to know what kinds of friends you had growing up and whether they might account for some of your 'intrinsic motivation'.
Given that, I'm curious to know what kinds of friends you had growing up and whether they might account for some of your 'intrinsic motivation'.
I wonder if epigenetics [1] can also explain some of what you're saying. Genes can be regulated in different ways - and that can explain differences in identical Twins.
[1] http://www.livescience.com/25431-gene-regulation-homosexuali...
[1] http://www.livescience.com/25431-gene-regulation-homosexuali...
Are you implying that Software Engineers are smart?
I ask as a Software Engineer who came from a family of techno-phobic Pipefitters. Don't we just have a particular kind of intelligence, and they may have theirs?
I ask as a Software Engineer who came from a family of techno-phobic Pipefitters. Don't we just have a particular kind of intelligence, and they may have theirs?
Intelligence is entirely environmental: if your environment contains nano- and bio-tech that will rebuild your brain to be physically identical with another person's, you will have the same IQ.
> Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor.
If the stunted growth of the pre-lingual deaf that are denied access to a sign language community are any indication, it's probably the most important factor of all, and I think that was the point of the article. I will quote a section of Oliver Sacks' great book "Seeing Voices" that further illustrates this:
The origin of questioning, of an active and questing disposition in the mind, is not something that arises spontaneously, de novo, or directly from the impact of experience; it stems, it is stimulated, by communicative exchange - it requires dialogue, in particular the complex dialogue of mother and child. It is here, [Hilde] Schlesinger finds, that the dichotomies start:
'Mothers talk with their children, do so very differently, and tend to be more often at one side or the other of a series of dichotomies. Some talk with their youngsters and participate primarily in dialogue; some primarily talk at their children. Some mainly support the actions of their offspring, and if not, provide reasons why not; others primarily control the actions of their children, and do not explain why. Some ask genuine questions ... others constraint questions ... Some are prompted by what the child says or does; others by their own inner needs and interests ... Some describe a large world in which events happened in the past and will happen in the future; others comment only about the here and now ... Some mothers mediate the environment by endowing stimuli with meaning [and others do not].'
A terrible power, it would seem, lies with the mother to communicate with her child properly or not; to introduce probing questions such as "How?" "Why?" and "What if?" or replace them with a mindless monologue of "What's this?" "Do that"; to communicate a sense of logic and causality, or to leave everything at the dumb level of unaccountability; to introduce a vivid sense of place and time, or to refer only to the here and now; to introduce a "generalized reflection of reality," a conceptual world that will give coherence and meaning to life, and challenge the mind and emotions of the child, or to leave everything at the level of the ungeneralized, the unquestioned, at something almost below the animal level of the perceptual. Children, it would seem, cannot choose the world they will live in - the mental and emotional, any more than the physical world; they are dependent, in the beginning, on what they are introduced to by their mothers.
Truth of the matter is, we are born with an unfinished brain that requires nurturing interaction with other humans and with language to truly develop. What's saddening is that Hilde Schlesinger's research is already decades old; this book is from 1989. We have known this for ages and society still has to catch up.
If the stunted growth of the pre-lingual deaf that are denied access to a sign language community are any indication, it's probably the most important factor of all, and I think that was the point of the article. I will quote a section of Oliver Sacks' great book "Seeing Voices" that further illustrates this:
The origin of questioning, of an active and questing disposition in the mind, is not something that arises spontaneously, de novo, or directly from the impact of experience; it stems, it is stimulated, by communicative exchange - it requires dialogue, in particular the complex dialogue of mother and child. It is here, [Hilde] Schlesinger finds, that the dichotomies start:
'Mothers talk with their children, do so very differently, and tend to be more often at one side or the other of a series of dichotomies. Some talk with their youngsters and participate primarily in dialogue; some primarily talk at their children. Some mainly support the actions of their offspring, and if not, provide reasons why not; others primarily control the actions of their children, and do not explain why. Some ask genuine questions ... others constraint questions ... Some are prompted by what the child says or does; others by their own inner needs and interests ... Some describe a large world in which events happened in the past and will happen in the future; others comment only about the here and now ... Some mothers mediate the environment by endowing stimuli with meaning [and others do not].'
A terrible power, it would seem, lies with the mother to communicate with her child properly or not; to introduce probing questions such as "How?" "Why?" and "What if?" or replace them with a mindless monologue of "What's this?" "Do that"; to communicate a sense of logic and causality, or to leave everything at the dumb level of unaccountability; to introduce a vivid sense of place and time, or to refer only to the here and now; to introduce a "generalized reflection of reality," a conceptual world that will give coherence and meaning to life, and challenge the mind and emotions of the child, or to leave everything at the level of the ungeneralized, the unquestioned, at something almost below the animal level of the perceptual. Children, it would seem, cannot choose the world they will live in - the mental and emotional, any more than the physical world; they are dependent, in the beginning, on what they are introduced to by their mothers.
Truth of the matter is, we are born with an unfinished brain that requires nurturing interaction with other humans and with language to truly develop. What's saddening is that Hilde Schlesinger's research is already decades old; this book is from 1989. We have known this for ages and society still has to catch up.
Even poor kids saw the inspiring Apple ads from the 90s...
;)
;)
This is a useless nitpick. It's not a scientific treatise, it's a public service message to try to change people's behavior.
I don't believe for a second that the doctor believes that intelligence has no inherited component whatsoever. She is dealing with a problem in the real world using what tools she has at her disposal.
Edit: Responding jamesaguilar's and true_religion's point about the title. Yes, that's true. I had just read the article and the title wasn't in the forefront of my mind. But when you get a title like that, you simply can't know whether it is meant as a bald statement or rather as something to pique the interest (or as link bait, if you aren't feeling charitable). So, if you elect to click the link, read the article to find out!
I don't believe for a second that the doctor believes that intelligence has no inherited component whatsoever. She is dealing with a problem in the real world using what tools she has at her disposal.
Edit: Responding jamesaguilar's and true_religion's point about the title. Yes, that's true. I had just read the article and the title wasn't in the forefront of my mind. But when you get a title like that, you simply can't know whether it is meant as a bald statement or rather as something to pique the interest (or as link bait, if you aren't feeling charitable). So, if you elect to click the link, read the article to find out!
I don't know if it really qualifies as a nitpick to directly contradict the article's title.
He "directly contradicted" an article full of references to actual research, with a single personal anecdote.
I'm not even sure it proves what he thinks it proves. Is he inherently smarter than the rest of his family? Or just more motivated? Or more interested in technology? Is success in computer programming direct proof that someone is very smart? I think a lot of programmers take that as received wisdom, but again I'm not so sure.
Anyway, if a child is one of the rare born geniuses, talking to them a lot will not harm them, and it might feed their latent abilities. If a child is genetically normal, talking will help them too. There is no practical reason to object to this article.
I'm not even sure it proves what he thinks it proves. Is he inherently smarter than the rest of his family? Or just more motivated? Or more interested in technology? Is success in computer programming direct proof that someone is very smart? I think a lot of programmers take that as received wisdom, but again I'm not so sure.
Anyway, if a child is one of the rare born geniuses, talking to them a lot will not harm them, and it might feed their latent abilities. If a child is genetically normal, talking will help them too. There is no practical reason to object to this article.
I think we need to ignore titles.
HN doesn't allow changes to the title. People writing articles will chose a click-baity title.
All titles suck.
HN doesn't allow changes to the title. People writing articles will chose a click-baity title.
All titles suck.
Minor nitpick: Very often editors pick the click-baity titles, not those writing the articles.
I think it qualifies if that's all you talk about. Correct the title, then move on to things that are actually interesting.
The purpose of an article's title is ONLY to get a reader to start reading the article. Journalism 101.
Public service announcements should at the very least not contain false information in their titles.
So we "simply can't know" whether the title should be taken at face value, but at the same time the parent's point is a "useless nitpick" because it's irrelevant to the main point of the article. Nice.
If we "simply can't know" what the point is, then how do you decide what's relevant?
If we "simply can't know" what the point is, then how do you decide what's relevant?
Yarg. I _knew_ I shouldn't have included the 'useless nitpick' line as it was needlessly aggressive.
But to respond: No, not at the same time. As I said in the edit, the title slipped my mind. Without the title it came across as a useless nitpick, with the title it does not even if I find it an uninteresting avenue of discussion.
But to respond: No, not at the same time. As I said in the edit, the title slipped my mind. Without the title it came across as a useless nitpick, with the title it does not even if I find it an uninteresting avenue of discussion.
Exactly. This is one determinant of intelligence that we can impact, but it's not the sole determinant of intelligence.
Congratulations, you've discovered the bell curve (plus a healthy dose of physical attributes that provide you with positive advantages in our society). We congratulate you for being on the nice side of it.
Those words are salon's, not the researchers, and they're a headline at that. I wouldn't assume that "it's nurture!" is the ultimate conclusion of this work. I'd suggest they're saying something more along the lines of, "Children who converse less then their peers are less likely to excel".
There is zero doubting that 'nature vs. nurture' is a complicated question (and a false dichotomy) and I don't think this article is making any claims outside of it's pretty narrow (and pretty interesting) focus.
There is zero doubting that 'nature vs. nurture' is a complicated question (and a false dichotomy) and I don't think this article is making any claims outside of it's pretty narrow (and pretty interesting) focus.
I'm totally willing to buy that talking to kids is good for them ("massively positively" strikes me as overstating the case) and that screen time rots their brains and their ability to ... um ... I forget.
But, as a parent, I have experienced that children are born with a ton of individual personality that is highly noticeable within days. It would be pretty much defy logic (as well as genetics) if some sort of predisposition for intelligence weren't part of this.
But, as a parent, I have experienced that children are born with a ton of individual personality that is highly noticeable within days. It would be pretty much defy logic (as well as genetics) if some sort of predisposition for intelligence weren't part of this.
Could it of been the fact that you were in such an environment, and had such a desire for something different be the source of your inspiration? I am not even talking money necessarily here, but the lack of intellectual stimulation? That made the doses you received all that much more intoxicating?
All I am saying is that a particular environment can affect someone in unexpected ways.
All I am saying is that a particular environment can affect someone in unexpected ways.
Why do you think his other family members did not share this desire?
I come from a unique environment that has allowed me to draw some very interesting conclusions.
I am from a family of 3 children. Two adopted and one "unexpected" natural birth.
One of the three of us has been in prison many times (and we have no other relatives that I know of that have ever been in trouble beyond the occasional speeding/parking ticket).
The other of the three of us is a carbon copy of their biological mother (dress sense, social sense, taste in music/books/films, mannerisms, extreme anti-social behaviour, etc) - they hadn't spoken until my sibling was 25 - so that was 25 years without contact, visibility, etc - and they still turned out to be a near carbon copy.
I followed in my parents footsteps in many ways, more than I realised at the time.
All three of us agree that we got the same toys, the same lollies, same schooling, same opportunities, etc... so we can only put the differences down to nature - and I can tell you that I'm a big believer that nature plays a BIG role in defining what we are...
I've often said "we don't just LOOK like our parents, it's also the nuances in the structure and wiring of our brains".
I have a few kids of my own, and while they are quite different (nerd v/s jock, introvert v/s extrovert, etc) - there are many similarities, unlike my siblings and I.
I am from a family of 3 children. Two adopted and one "unexpected" natural birth.
One of the three of us has been in prison many times (and we have no other relatives that I know of that have ever been in trouble beyond the occasional speeding/parking ticket).
The other of the three of us is a carbon copy of their biological mother (dress sense, social sense, taste in music/books/films, mannerisms, extreme anti-social behaviour, etc) - they hadn't spoken until my sibling was 25 - so that was 25 years without contact, visibility, etc - and they still turned out to be a near carbon copy.
I followed in my parents footsteps in many ways, more than I realised at the time.
All three of us agree that we got the same toys, the same lollies, same schooling, same opportunities, etc... so we can only put the differences down to nature - and I can tell you that I'm a big believer that nature plays a BIG role in defining what we are...
I've often said "we don't just LOOK like our parents, it's also the nuances in the structure and wiring of our brains".
I have a few kids of my own, and while they are quite different (nerd v/s jock, introvert v/s extrovert, etc) - there are many similarities, unlike my siblings and I.
Did your parents know what the biological parents of your sibling were like ? I am playing the Pygmalion card.
Regarding your brother who has been in prison many times: adopted boys I know of are often in trouble. I think it's really hard to adopt and raise a child born from someone else. Some things don't seem to click.
I wonder what the statistics are telling about adopted children's success in life and how it is linked to biological parents and the adopting family education.
Regarding your brother who has been in prison many times: adopted boys I know of are often in trouble. I think it's really hard to adopt and raise a child born from someone else. Some things don't seem to click.
I wonder what the statistics are telling about adopted children's success in life and how it is linked to biological parents and the adopting family education.
There are many more environmental factors than that, differences in behaviour between classmates, different friends, even the number of siblings are all environmental factors that I think make a difference.
You can all go to the same school with the same teachers but if one of you have a teacher on a Monday morning and the other has the same teacher Friday afternoon after teaching a stressful ill-disciplined class, then the second child may have a different view of that subject forever.
You can all go to the same school with the same teachers but if one of you have a teacher on a Monday morning and the other has the same teacher Friday afternoon after teaching a stressful ill-disciplined class, then the second child may have a different view of that subject forever.
Exactly even if you live in the same house for 18+ years and have all the same stuff, experiences can differ quite dramatically in life.
The title is bunk, but interaction is critical. Also, screenings (starting withe the Denver and going to something like the E-LAP / LAP) are an important item. Correcting an issue at the earliest possible age is important.
Kids are different and are individuals. Genetics, nutrition, interaction, and care all count.
Kids are different and are individuals. Genetics, nutrition, interaction, and care all count.
> Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly.
You don't understand the claim correctly. The claim is that environmental factors (particularly being talked to) are essential to development of intelligence, not that environmental factors determine intelligence entirely.
The distinction between necessary conditions and necessary and sufficient conditions is pretty critical.
You don't understand the claim correctly. The claim is that environmental factors (particularly being talked to) are essential to development of intelligence, not that environmental factors determine intelligence entirely.
The distinction between necessary conditions and necessary and sufficient conditions is pretty critical.
Children are not born smart in much the same way that children are not born strong. Of course, some children are born with more potential smartness, just like some children are born with more potential strength. But they still need the environment to reach their full potential. There are some outliers who become really smart despite the lack of help from their environment, but probably they would have become even smarter in a helpful environment.
A better analogy is height. Given some minimal level of nutrition, a child's adult height can be extrapolated quite accurately from their parents' genomes. However, if a child grows up in abject poverty, all bets are off. See Judith Rich Harris' The Nurture Assumption [1] for details.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
I also found the book 'Selfish reasons to have more kids' interesting on this topic. It uses twin studies to suggest that although parenting does have an effect in the short term, in the long term genetic factors are dominant as long as the child is raised outside abject poverty.
The conclusion of the book is: provide a healthy environment, but don't agonize over violin lessons and other 'enriching' activities.
That said, I went and bought another book with advice on how to talk to your child to stimulate language development ('look who's talking') and we read to him a lot. So, I believe the twin studies in theory, but not in practice.
Finally, on this general topic, 'how children succeed' points out that character traits like grit (willingness to keep trying something hard and unpleasant) and conscientiousness (desire to do the right thing) are more important than intellect in success, beyond some modest intellect baseline. I suspect my son is plenty smart, but what really interests me is trying to foster grit and conscientiousness.
The conclusion of the book is: provide a healthy environment, but don't agonize over violin lessons and other 'enriching' activities.
That said, I went and bought another book with advice on how to talk to your child to stimulate language development ('look who's talking') and we read to him a lot. So, I believe the twin studies in theory, but not in practice.
Finally, on this general topic, 'how children succeed' points out that character traits like grit (willingness to keep trying something hard and unpleasant) and conscientiousness (desire to do the right thing) are more important than intellect in success, beyond some modest intellect baseline. I suspect my son is plenty smart, but what really interests me is trying to foster grit and conscientiousness.
Another trait that's important for success in life is deferred gratification, or the ability to give up a small immediate reward for a larger reward in the future. That trait, when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things later in life, including academic success and physical health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification
The study I assume you are basing your statement that '[delayed gratification] when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things' has largely been debunked. When the poverty level of the children tested is factored out, the effect disappears.
It seems what is really being shown is the rational basis in children to discount promises made by adults for future rewards, when in their experience adults had been unable or unwilling to deliver on promises made.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/19/just-let-th...
http://priceonomics.com/what-marshmallows-tell-us-about-sili...
It seems what is really being shown is the rational basis in children to discount promises made by adults for future rewards, when in their experience adults had been unable or unwilling to deliver on promises made.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/19/just-let-th...
http://priceonomics.com/what-marshmallows-tell-us-about-sili...
I don't think either of those two links refute the idea that "delayed gratification when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things".
From The Daily Beast article: "Eigsti does not feel her data disproves Mischel—he was actually a co-author on her paper, and she thinks her work is consistent."
The Priconomics article says: "The original marshmallow experiment concluded that the children's ability to wait for a second treat indicated an innate ability to exhibit self control". But nothing I've read indicates that Mischel believed the ability to delay gratification was innate. In fact, most of his previous research indicated that such an ability was strongly influenced by environmental factors.
From The Daily Beast article: "Eigsti does not feel her data disproves Mischel—he was actually a co-author on her paper, and she thinks her work is consistent."
The Priconomics article says: "The original marshmallow experiment concluded that the children's ability to wait for a second treat indicated an innate ability to exhibit self control". But nothing I've read indicates that Mischel believed the ability to delay gratification was innate. In fact, most of his previous research indicated that such an ability was strongly influenced by environmental factors.
I have the exact same concern. While my kid is only 1.5 years old and as such I don't consider him smart, dumb or anything in between, the thing in the next years I would like to teach him most is exactly what you mention, grit and conscientiousness. This has been on my mind since he was born.
If you want to talk about or discuss some ideas, you can reach me at my email (on profile)
If you want to talk about or discuss some ideas, you can reach me at my email (on profile)
Not to mention, it's very uncontroversial to say children aren't born tall.
However we barely understand the genetic factors. In humans it can be pretty difficult to control the environment. And then we assume we can understand the genetics of intelligence, when we barely understand either genetics or intelligence itself.
You can keep saying stuff like that, but I hope you're not using it as a pretext for ignoring the latest scientific developments.
Have you heard of GWAS? They've had some major breakthroughs over the past few years, and have recently had some interesting results with regard to educational attainment. From Science:
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467.abstract
If you want some more information, here's a good article from early 2012 summarizing the previous five years of findings:
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929711005337
Have you heard of GWAS? They've had some major breakthroughs over the past few years, and have recently had some interesting results with regard to educational attainment. From Science:
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467.abstract
If you want some more information, here's a good article from early 2012 summarizing the previous five years of findings:
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929711005337
'I was disadvantaged ipso facto I am simply genetically gifted'.
Could it, perhaps, be that those causal elements in your environment do not work precisely in the way you presume to work? That it's not simply a 'good' upbringing that raises good people? Do you not -- for instance -- have a drive to succeed because of your prior disadvantages in life? Is not the lack of early-life support a driver of your own ambitions?
Could it, perhaps, be that those causal elements in your environment do not work precisely in the way you presume to work? That it's not simply a 'good' upbringing that raises good people? Do you not -- for instance -- have a drive to succeed because of your prior disadvantages in life? Is not the lack of early-life support a driver of your own ambitions?
Oh bull. We know intelligence has some genetic component, or else a sufficiently trained monkey would do calculus. We just don't entirely know what "intelligence" is well enough to measure its precise heritability.
Intelligence is not a scalar.
This article should make you rethink your example: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelli...
This article should make you rethink your example: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelli...
>Intelligence is not a scalar.
It doesn't have to be. But it does vary from person to person (even if non linearly). What would you say affects the intelligence of people with mental retardation?
It doesn't have to be. But it does vary from person to person (even if non linearly). What would you say affects the intelligence of people with mental retardation?
In a debate about how things work, "you're wrong because we know you're wrong" isn't a useful argument. As to comparison to other animals, we also know that there is a genetic component to being able to live under water, as fish can do this and humans can't, this doesn't mean some humans are better than others at living without air.
The difference being that humans aren't descended from fish, but are descended from apes. We know that some kind of incremental genetic "improvement" to our intelligence must have evolved and then become universal throughout the populations that speciated to become modern humans.
First, to be pedantic, we aren't descended from apes, just very closely related to them with a common ancestor.
Second, is there any evidence that the evolutionary history of intelligence was linear? How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gradually?
Second, is there any evidence that the evolutionary history of intelligence was linear? How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gradually?
If you are going to be pedantic, genetically we are not just descended from apes, we are apes. If you look at the evolutionary tree of the apes and monkeys, it makes no sense to consider humans outside the ape group. Chimpanzees and humans are more closely related than Chimpanzees and Gorillas for example.
The only reason we consider humans to be descended from rather than being apes, is that we don't look at the evolutionary tree from the outside. Biologically it makes no sense.
The only reason we consider humans to be descended from rather than being apes, is that we don't look at the evolutionary tree from the outside. Biologically it makes no sense.
Also, you could easily call some of the things we descended from fish.
> How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change,
This question seems kind of confused. But we can say with complete certainty that it's not the case that "one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did" because generations don't happen at any particular time. Imagine your ancestor through the paternal line 30 generations back from you (that is, your father's father's father's... father). If you call him generation 1, then you're generation 31. But other people born in the same year as you, also descended from him, will not all be generation 31. And if you married one of them who was, for the sake of argument, only 28 generations removed from him, your children would be, in this labeling scheme, simultaneously generation 32 and generation 29.
The reason I say your question is confused is that the model where there was a "single change", and all humans today descend from it, requires several generations to take hold (as it gradually increases its population share), but you appear to posit only one.
This question seems kind of confused. But we can say with complete certainty that it's not the case that "one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did" because generations don't happen at any particular time. Imagine your ancestor through the paternal line 30 generations back from you (that is, your father's father's father's... father). If you call him generation 1, then you're generation 31. But other people born in the same year as you, also descended from him, will not all be generation 31. And if you married one of them who was, for the sake of argument, only 28 generations removed from him, your children would be, in this labeling scheme, simultaneously generation 32 and generation 29.
The reason I say your question is confused is that the model where there was a "single change", and all humans today descend from it, requires several generations to take hold (as it gradually increases its population share), but you appear to posit only one.
The most simplistic scenario in which a change could happen in "one generation" is if there is one man today born with a mutated gene that protects him against X, and tomorrow X happens which kills all men in the world except him, leaving him to impregnate many women, and all future generations would be descended from him. Not saying that has ever happened (I've no idea, for all I know it might have but does seem fairly unlikely), but in theory it's possible.
The question is how you would get a single allele that gets you from lower apes to fully sapient humans in one mutation, in one individual, that also protects against something which killed off everyone else.
It wouldn't have to be a single mutation, but let's say intelligence is linear from 1 (apes) to 5 (humans). At some point an animal mutated from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, etc. Each step the more intelligent version ended up killing off the weaker version (either through violence or just through better survival in nature), and we ended up where we are at 5, which all humans begin at and our surroundings (i.e. nurture not nature) can modify that 5 down to 4.9 or up to 5.1
I'm incredibly not an expert on evolution (it shows I'm sure!), but from a logical point of view that seems like it's feasible at least - whether it's incredibly likely or incredibly unlikely I've no idea.
I'm incredibly not an expert on evolution (it shows I'm sure!), but from a logical point of view that seems like it's feasible at least - whether it's incredibly likely or incredibly unlikely I've no idea.
How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gradually?
Because it's very, very rare for evolution to actually work that way.
Because it's very, very rare for evolution to actually work that way.
Being rare != it didn't happen.
In a sample size of one, statistics is useless.
In a sample size of one, statistics is useless.
Not fish per se, but we sure as hell are descended from underwater dwellers.
You claim to "demonstrate that it's a lot more complex than just environmental factors". But the correct conclusion from what you said is that you demonstrated that it's a lot more complex than just the environmental factors that you thought of.
You seem to be concluding genetic factors ("always had an intrinsic motivation"). But "not all environment" does not imply "some genetics", that is a false alternative.
There are more possible factors than just environment and genetics. One is human choice (sometimes called "free will", but that term has a lot of baggage). I do not agree with the perspective of attributing everything to factors, rather than a person's own choices.
Genetics certainly have a role in some sense. If you had different genes, you would have been a cat instead of human, and would not have the brain to be a software engineer.
But the general idea that life is very complicated, and the results of people in similar situations vary -- true so far -- simply does not imply (partial) genetic determinism. "Environment", or more generally alternatives to genetic determinism, is/are very subtle and complex. The world is vastly complicated, "environment" refers to a million factors most of which no one documents.
You had, in many respects, a different life and environment than anyone else had. Everyone has a unique environment at high precision. So whatever result you get, what would that prove?
You wonder how a person with several factors against them could be intelligent and successful? You can't think of any ways, besides genetics? There are a million ways. Poverty, non-wonderful discouraging parents, poor teachers, and whatever else are not one's whole life. You met many people, some more helpful than that. You read some books. Even just an ordered list of what books you read up to age 20 might be unique.
People don't start the same, but even if they did, things would quickly branch, again and again. 30 identical students sit in a classroom. The teacher explains something. By sheer randomness, if nothing else, some students understand it today, and some do not understand it yet. Then the next day the teacher gives a second lecture. Everyone hears "the same" lecture, but they have different situations (having understood or not understood yesterday's lesson), so different students experience "the same lecture" in different ways due to their different situations and perspectives. Similarly, in general, people in "the same environment" are not actually having the same experiences.
You seem to be concluding genetic factors ("always had an intrinsic motivation"). But "not all environment" does not imply "some genetics", that is a false alternative.
There are more possible factors than just environment and genetics. One is human choice (sometimes called "free will", but that term has a lot of baggage). I do not agree with the perspective of attributing everything to factors, rather than a person's own choices.
Genetics certainly have a role in some sense. If you had different genes, you would have been a cat instead of human, and would not have the brain to be a software engineer.
But the general idea that life is very complicated, and the results of people in similar situations vary -- true so far -- simply does not imply (partial) genetic determinism. "Environment", or more generally alternatives to genetic determinism, is/are very subtle and complex. The world is vastly complicated, "environment" refers to a million factors most of which no one documents.
You had, in many respects, a different life and environment than anyone else had. Everyone has a unique environment at high precision. So whatever result you get, what would that prove?
You wonder how a person with several factors against them could be intelligent and successful? You can't think of any ways, besides genetics? There are a million ways. Poverty, non-wonderful discouraging parents, poor teachers, and whatever else are not one's whole life. You met many people, some more helpful than that. You read some books. Even just an ordered list of what books you read up to age 20 might be unique.
People don't start the same, but even if they did, things would quickly branch, again and again. 30 identical students sit in a classroom. The teacher explains something. By sheer randomness, if nothing else, some students understand it today, and some do not understand it yet. Then the next day the teacher gives a second lecture. Everyone hears "the same" lecture, but they have different situations (having understood or not understood yesterday's lesson), so different students experience "the same lecture" in different ways due to their different situations and perspectives. Similarly, in general, people in "the same environment" are not actually having the same experiences.
Are you claiming people are solely the product of their environment? There is substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a deterministic inherited thing (it's clearly not). However I believe there is strong evidence that everyone is born with a unique personality and potential. An "environmental chaos theory" does not do justice to unexplained outliers, those with recognized mind-affecting genetic conditions, and many other real-world scenarios.
My situation is even more unusual than you realize. I didn't even meet many people while growing up; throughout my childhood I was almost entirely separated from the outside world (lived secluded in the mountains). Almost no neighbors near by. I never went to public school. Extremely protective parents did not allow us to ever talk to strangers. All this is the same case for my siblings, yet they have no desire to pursue technology, while I do.
Note that by no means am I trying to downplay the importance of environment. I'm simply trying to illustrate that the claim "environment determines 100% of someone's mental and personality development" is empirically wrong.
Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a deterministic inherited thing (it's clearly not). However I believe there is strong evidence that everyone is born with a unique personality and potential. An "environmental chaos theory" does not do justice to unexplained outliers, those with recognized mind-affecting genetic conditions, and many other real-world scenarios.
My situation is even more unusual than you realize. I didn't even meet many people while growing up; throughout my childhood I was almost entirely separated from the outside world (lived secluded in the mountains). Almost no neighbors near by. I never went to public school. Extremely protective parents did not allow us to ever talk to strangers. All this is the same case for my siblings, yet they have no desire to pursue technology, while I do.
Note that by no means am I trying to downplay the importance of environment. I'm simply trying to illustrate that the claim "environment determines 100% of someone's mental and personality development" is empirically wrong.
> Are you claiming people are solely the product of their environment? There is substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
I'm genuinely interested in what/where this is, any links / searches?
I'm genuinely interested in what/where this is, any links / searches?
This is at least one of the studies I've heard of: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872627
This debate is commonly referred to as the nature versus nurture debate:
https://www.google.com/search?q=intelligenc+nature+vs+nurtur...
It's a vigorous and deep debate. Happy reading!
https://www.google.com/search?q=intelligenc+nature+vs+nurtur...
It's a vigorous and deep debate. Happy reading!
Which is right up there with the abortion debate. In the vast, vast majority of actual cases, you find relatively little disagreement. Rare edge cases, however, ignite incendiary reactions from both sides.
As a pathologist and father, I'm 100% confident there are very good reasons for electing to abort in a variety of circumstances, not all related to the fetus or mother, though there is little reason to rejoice in any of them.
Similarly, I am 100% certain that human development is part genetics, and part environment. But we can't control our genetics. So I don't worry about that much. Maybe there's some fascinating biology discovered every few years, but I can learn good lessons from observing other parents every day.
Maybe that's a good way to frame the environment issue: if you really don't believe environment matters, then ask yourself, should you have kids so you have someone to take your frustrations out on?
As a pathologist and father, I'm 100% confident there are very good reasons for electing to abort in a variety of circumstances, not all related to the fetus or mother, though there is little reason to rejoice in any of them.
Similarly, I am 100% certain that human development is part genetics, and part environment. But we can't control our genetics. So I don't worry about that much. Maybe there's some fascinating biology discovered every few years, but I can learn good lessons from observing other parents every day.
Maybe that's a good way to frame the environment issue: if you really don't believe environment matters, then ask yourself, should you have kids so you have someone to take your frustrations out on?
The body of research can be found by searching "human biodiversity".
I think what you're missing is that, for whatever reason, we are genetically programmed to seek balance. Whatever is missing in your childhood environment, you will search for as an adult.
The metaphor that comes to mind is this: imagine yourself as a spring, standing upright. In childhood, this spring was held down by a heavy boot. Now that the boot has lifted, what has happened to the spring? Is it back to the original height, or has it stretched even higher?
The metaphor that comes to mind is this: imagine yourself as a spring, standing upright. In childhood, this spring was held down by a heavy boot. Now that the boot has lifted, what has happened to the spring? Is it back to the original height, or has it stretched even higher?
That's a nice thought but not a fact. Some who are held down search for what they were deprived, some don't. I would assume the many examples of this are all anecdotal since they make great stories. The flip side is not that uncommon and thus not celebrated and reported about.
I guess it depends on how closely you look at things.
I have no idea, having not done the experiment. Maybe it's shorter and crooked. I don't understand the metaphor.
Just that the oppressed seek liberation. Some find it, some don't, but they all seek it. If they stop seeking it, they find liberation by becoming the oppressor, either by oppressing others or oppressing themselves.
So individually we see exceptions (Which could be seen differently if studied more) In vast numbers we seen factors.
Apples vs Oranges = Looking at Millions vs Individual.
I am a teacher in a city. My students are 100% below poverty line. My student under perform dramatically for their age when they walk through our doors. BUT there are exceptions. You are possibly one exception. BUT when you look at millions of poor vs millions of upper class there is a HUGE difference.
In your line of thought: Poor people are poor due mainly to genetics. I can't believe that for a second due to how many million of poor in US. My children when they leave the school after one or two years are ahead of their peers who do not come to our school.
My two cents.
Apples vs Oranges = Looking at Millions vs Individual.
I am a teacher in a city. My students are 100% below poverty line. My student under perform dramatically for their age when they walk through our doors. BUT there are exceptions. You are possibly one exception. BUT when you look at millions of poor vs millions of upper class there is a HUGE difference.
In your line of thought: Poor people are poor due mainly to genetics. I can't believe that for a second due to how many million of poor in US. My children when they leave the school after one or two years are ahead of their peers who do not come to our school.
My two cents.
Doesn't the claim that human choice isn't a product of environment and genetics bring along all the baggage of "free will"? If my choices aren't based on my experiences (i.e how my physical self perceives my environment) or how my brain was initially configured in-utero, then it starts to suggest that I have a supernatural soul that makes those choices for other reasons.
> If you had different genes, you would have been a cat instead of human, and would not have the brain to be a software engineer.
While I don't discount the whole of your argument, this is possibly the dumbest thing you could have said.
While I don't discount the whole of your argument, this is possibly the dumbest thing you could have said.
Reading this gave me goose bumps since you managed to describe and explain something I've been thinking about for a long time.
You admit that your experience is an outlier ("and I'm definitely the only one like this from my family, a clear outlier"), yet you appear to be trying to use your experience to disprove the effect of environment on intelligence.
The fact that they were technophobic might have been what saved you, since instead of sitting in front of the TV or computers, people were actually talking to each other.
Peer group?
The article gives an 'example' where the child of the janitor is 'smarter' than the one of the doctor or college student.
So the question is, did your parents talk to you? (not where your parents astrophysicists?)
>> “Now I know I can just have a regular conversation with her,” Adams said. “Just ask her about her day, even if I can’t understand half of it.”
If your parents mostly ignored you, plugged you in the TV, didn't ask you open questions and left you to yourself since a very early age then you may be an exception. (of course your memories from 1 - 5 may not be all that accurate either. What do your parents say about talking to you and making you talk?)
So the question is, did your parents talk to you? (not where your parents astrophysicists?)
>> “Now I know I can just have a regular conversation with her,” Adams said. “Just ask her about her day, even if I can’t understand half of it.”
If your parents mostly ignored you, plugged you in the TV, didn't ask you open questions and left you to yourself since a very early age then you may be an exception. (of course your memories from 1 - 5 may not be all that accurate either. What do your parents say about talking to you and making you talk?)
Haven't you just excluded nurture ("can't come up with a single environmental influence that explains this") and nature ("I'm definitely the only one like this from my family, a clear outlier")?
If you didn't get if from your family via genes, and you didn't get it from the environment, where else is left? Everyone else seems to be reading your comment as pro-genetics, but given the quote above, I can't see that.
If you didn't get if from your family via genes, and you didn't get it from the environment, where else is left? Everyone else seems to be reading your comment as pro-genetics, but given the quote above, I can't see that.
Genetics is complicated- it is possible for offspring to develop traits that were not present in either parent.
So is nurture, people go to school in different years from their siblings (and parents) etc. and so on.
So it would be a lot stronger case for genetics (assuming it's supposed to be one, and not just a tangential anecdote) if they'd said "No one ever spoke to us but all 7 of my brothers and sisters became top engineers, just like our parents, uncles and cousins (that we'd never met)".
As it stands it seems to recommending having some kind of fortitude (which isn't taught via nurture, or inherited via genetics) as the key element.
So it would be a lot stronger case for genetics (assuming it's supposed to be one, and not just a tangential anecdote) if they'd said "No one ever spoke to us but all 7 of my brothers and sisters became top engineers, just like our parents, uncles and cousins (that we'd never met)".
As it stands it seems to recommending having some kind of fortitude (which isn't taught via nurture, or inherited via genetics) as the key element.
Chance.
Not saying that's it, but when you have someone self-reporting on a forum like this, claiming to be an outlier, there's probably a good bit of luck involved.
Not saying that's it, but when you have someone self-reporting on a forum like this, claiming to be an outlier, there's probably a good bit of luck involved.
Despite the fact that it may be "well established within academic circles", there is no actual evidence for the contention of the article - even within the article. In particular, for the study they mention, "The full results haven’t been published yet". It's no more than wishful thinking and a convenient hypothesis.
I guess poor children hear fewer words because they don't watch much television.
It's the opposite, actually: poor children watch much more television, because their parents don't have time to spend with them.
And it's the words spoken by those parents that matter.
It has been suggested that television isn't itself harmful, and is only correlated with poor outcomes because it displaces time that would otherwise spent on actual interaction.
And it's the words spoken by those parents that matter.
It has been suggested that television isn't itself harmful, and is only correlated with poor outcomes because it displaces time that would otherwise spent on actual interaction.
Reference for "poor children watch more television": http://thegrio.com/2012/10/01/study-children-from-african-am...
actually this is a question that I had - could mediums like television, or a tablet app make up for the parents not talking ?
Or does it need for the child to speak back ?
Or does it need for the child to speak back ?
"Screen time" (TV, tablets) has been demonstrated to be harmful to childhood development in children younger than 2. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends ZERO screen time for children younger than two (this includes background TV).
Some carefully planned educational programs like Sesame Street have shown to be beneficial in older children. Screen time should be minimized though, as it isn't a replacement for interaction.
Does do read the article, it teaches the parent to avoid commands like "put your shoes on" and instead substitute interactive talk like "we are getting ready to go out, what do you need to do to get ready?" That lets the child reply with "shoes" or "coat." It is about interacting with your child.
Some carefully planned educational programs like Sesame Street have shown to be beneficial in older children. Screen time should be minimized though, as it isn't a replacement for interaction.
Does do read the article, it teaches the parent to avoid commands like "put your shoes on" and instead substitute interactive talk like "we are getting ready to go out, what do you need to do to get ready?" That lets the child reply with "shoes" or "coat." It is about interacting with your child.
Conversation needs to be interactive and needs to respond to what the child is saying.
You need to repeat what the infant is saying. This is to let the infant know that you've heard them, and understood what they said. It's also to model correct pronunciation without criticising. And you then spin off the conversation to thinking and imagination and play.
"Look! A fire emiGGen!!"
"Yes! It's a fire engine! What do you think they're doing?"
(The 'sing song' voice we use to speak to young children feels silly. But apparently it's important.)
Television and tablets have their place, I guess. Some of the CBeebies content (Children's tv from the BBC) is good. And children need some empty relaxing time.
You need to repeat what the infant is saying. This is to let the infant know that you've heard them, and understood what they said. It's also to model correct pronunciation without criticising. And you then spin off the conversation to thinking and imagination and play.
"Look! A fire emiGGen!!"
"Yes! It's a fire engine! What do you think they're doing?"
(The 'sing song' voice we use to speak to young children feels silly. But apparently it's important.)
Television and tablets have their place, I guess. Some of the CBeebies content (Children's tv from the BBC) is good. And children need some empty relaxing time.
Serious question HN: I often see parents have an almost instinctual need to feed their children bad information and see if the can detect the falsehoods.
Is this instrumental in teaching "savvy" ?
Is this instrumental in teaching "savvy" ?
I do this with other people who aren't kids, though I try to keep it to family and close friends so that I don't thrash my reputation too much. Typically I'll pick a theme (say, "citrus fruit, and related topics") for a particular family get-together and see how many semi-plausible but invented facts revolving around that theme I can inject into conversations. Sometimes I'm rewarded by hearing facts that I made up regurgitated years later (one that I am proud of is that orange juice turns an opaque white when pasteurized, and needs to be dyed back to orange (like margarine) for sale.)
Fundamentally I think this is an exercise in creativity; sort of like telling a good campfire story of your own creation. So far as people play this game with kids, I suspect it is because kids are easier to fool so the game is more rewarding.
Fundamentally I think this is an exercise in creativity; sort of like telling a good campfire story of your own creation. So far as people play this game with kids, I suspect it is because kids are easier to fool so the game is more rewarding.
I do this to my son because small children (<3) are such amazing mimics that it's hard to tell if they truly understand a concept without testing positive and negative responses.
I could make my 2.5yo kid seem like a genius to strangers by asking the right questions. As a trivial example, I know he usually says "yes" when asked a question he doesn't really understand.
I could make my 2.5yo kid seem like a genius to strangers by asking the right questions. As a trivial example, I know he usually says "yes" when asked a question he doesn't really understand.
No, that's horrible.
There are better ways of teaching children that people lie, and that information is not always accurate.
Besides, people don't always know that they're passing on bad information, so you'd have the situation where someone is passing on stuff that is wrong but saying "no! this isn't part of the game! this stuff is really real!"
There are better ways of teaching children that people lie, and that information is not always accurate.
Besides, people don't always know that they're passing on bad information, so you'd have the situation where someone is passing on stuff that is wrong but saying "no! this isn't part of the game! this stuff is really real!"
So many articles about who's smart, why are they smart, blah blah blah. I just wonder if it is just narcissism or its inadequacy or what ... but on some level, if you think you are smart, then just get on with and do "smart things" and if you think you're not "smart enough," get on it with anyway ... pining away about whether Khan Academy can make you the next Einstein or whether you need to be Einstein to understand it is pointless ... Sure we need some people to research education and so forth but I feel like we have that covered by now. :)
Any discussion around smartness reminds me of the Big Bang Theory. If one needs to discuss their intellect, well they probably don't have much.
Solid parenting advice, #1 talk to your children even when they cannot talk, #2 read new books to your children every week. You can always re-read favorites but just keep the new books coming. And then combine #1 and #2 and talk to your children about the books you read.
There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name. It starts by looking at the colors used in ancient texts and works its way forward. Some women have more cones than normal and are tetrachromatic so they can see more colors than the normal trichromatic human. But until you name the new colors apparently you can't see them (or recognize them).
People seem to need words to organize their thoughts and reason about things they see or read. The more words you give them, the better able they are to reason.
[1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/211119-colors/
There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name. It starts by looking at the colors used in ancient texts and works its way forward. Some women have more cones than normal and are tetrachromatic so they can see more colors than the normal trichromatic human. But until you name the new colors apparently you can't see them (or recognize them).
People seem to need words to organize their thoughts and reason about things they see or read. The more words you give them, the better able they are to reason.
[1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/211119-colors/
> There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name.
As I understand, this has been tested and found wanting: you can ask people to take a group of things colored aoi / blue-green, when they have words for neither blue nor green, and ask them to come up with some additional categorization. Instead of categorizing at random or something, they form two distinct groups of... blue and green. And you can predict what colors a language will have based on the number of words it allocates to color (eg. if there's only two color words, they're always going to be black and white https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_... )
As I understand, this has been tested and found wanting: you can ask people to take a group of things colored aoi / blue-green, when they have words for neither blue nor green, and ask them to come up with some additional categorization. Instead of categorizing at random or something, they form two distinct groups of... blue and green. And you can predict what colors a language will have based on the number of words it allocates to color (eg. if there's only two color words, they're always going to be black and white https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_... )
> There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name. [emphasis added]
Interesting idea, but untestable, therefore unscientific. Do you see why? A color we can't name isn't open to systematic investigation. If we try to get around this by asking a subject to compare the "unseen" color to a color patch, we're only given the "unseeable" color a name by proxy.
This kind of claim is very commonly made by people who don't understand science.
> People seem to need words to organize their thoughts and reason about things they see or read.
This argues that animals lacking language also lack the ability to think. Copious evidence disproves this idea. Video of a raven using tools to achieve a purpose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Z6Mvjd9w0
> The more words you give them, the better able they are to reason.
The better able to reason with words. This is self-referential in the extreme.
Interesting idea, but untestable, therefore unscientific. Do you see why? A color we can't name isn't open to systematic investigation. If we try to get around this by asking a subject to compare the "unseen" color to a color patch, we're only given the "unseeable" color a name by proxy.
This kind of claim is very commonly made by people who don't understand science.
> People seem to need words to organize their thoughts and reason about things they see or read.
This argues that animals lacking language also lack the ability to think. Copious evidence disproves this idea. Video of a raven using tools to achieve a purpose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Z6Mvjd9w0
> The more words you give them, the better able they are to reason.
The better able to reason with words. This is self-referential in the extreme.
The point is that "color" does not physically exist[1], it is a construct of human perception and language. Thus you cannot scientifically study color at all--if you try, what you are actually studying is human perception and language.
This is not an unscientific concept, because human perception and language are naturally occurring, albeit incredibly complex, phenomena.
Animals do not see colors, they react to physical phenomena including photons. Humans use the concept of color to describe what animals do.
Certain animals who learn human language can communicate with us about color. That doesn't mean they can't think, it just means that color is a human construct so they need human language to reason about it.
[1] What physically exists are photons across a range of frequencies, but that's not the same thing as color.
This is not an unscientific concept, because human perception and language are naturally occurring, albeit incredibly complex, phenomena.
Animals do not see colors, they react to physical phenomena including photons. Humans use the concept of color to describe what animals do.
Certain animals who learn human language can communicate with us about color. That doesn't mean they can't think, it just means that color is a human construct so they need human language to reason about it.
[1] What physically exists are photons across a range of frequencies, but that's not the same thing as color.
> Animals do not see colors, they react to physical phenomena including photons.
Come on. This is a roundabout way to try to define animals in terms of what they don't have -- not color perception, which many animals have, but words to describe the colors.
Of course animals see colors, in the most basic biological sense. Many see colors more efficiently than we do, indeed see more colors, colors we can neither imagine nor name.
> ... it just means that color is a human construct so they need human language to reason about it.
Believe me when I tell you, animals don't need us to tell them how to reason about color. Why do you think the Peppered Moth changed color over a period of 150 years? It was the only way the species could survive their changing environment and the acute visual sense of their predators.
> What physically exists are photons across a range of frequencies, but that's not the same thing as color.
No, what we call "color" or "color perception" is the biological sensing of electromagnetic energy, which many animals have. So, since we and animals have color perception, and since some animals do it better than we do, the argument has no substance.
While we're on the topic, here are my favorite colors:
* Unforeseeable fuchsia, the color you never see coming.
* Statutory grape, the color of a dress worn by a 13-year-old girl.
Come on. This is a roundabout way to try to define animals in terms of what they don't have -- not color perception, which many animals have, but words to describe the colors.
Of course animals see colors, in the most basic biological sense. Many see colors more efficiently than we do, indeed see more colors, colors we can neither imagine nor name.
> ... it just means that color is a human construct so they need human language to reason about it.
Believe me when I tell you, animals don't need us to tell them how to reason about color. Why do you think the Peppered Moth changed color over a period of 150 years? It was the only way the species could survive their changing environment and the acute visual sense of their predators.
> What physically exists are photons across a range of frequencies, but that's not the same thing as color.
No, what we call "color" or "color perception" is the biological sensing of electromagnetic energy, which many animals have. So, since we and animals have color perception, and since some animals do it better than we do, the argument has no substance.
While we're on the topic, here are my favorite colors:
* Unforeseeable fuchsia, the color you never see coming.
* Statutory grape, the color of a dress worn by a 13-year-old girl.
You're basically doing what I said people do, which is to use color to describe how animals act. That does not mean that color, as a concept, has any meaning in the mind of an animal.
The electromagnetic spectrum is continuous; our concept of color is a completely arbitrary way of dividing it[1] up into sections. That was the point of the Radiolab episode (and a lot of academic research before it): different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways, each of which is as valid as another.
Animals might not have this concept at all; for example it would be just as physically valid to think of the electromagnetic spectrum the way we think about sound--as a continous spectrum from "quiet" to "loud". We know that divisions are arbitrary when it comes to sound--that's why the "this amp goes to 11" joke in Spinal Tap is funny.
[1] Edit to add: only a tiny portion of it
The electromagnetic spectrum is continuous; our concept of color is a completely arbitrary way of dividing it[1] up into sections. That was the point of the Radiolab episode (and a lot of academic research before it): different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways, each of which is as valid as another.
Animals might not have this concept at all; for example it would be just as physically valid to think of the electromagnetic spectrum the way we think about sound--as a continous spectrum from "quiet" to "loud". We know that divisions are arbitrary when it comes to sound--that's why the "this amp goes to 11" joke in Spinal Tap is funny.
[1] Edit to add: only a tiny portion of it
The frequency of the perceived light coresponds roughly to color. The frequency of the perceived sound corresponds roughly to pitch. So I think that "quiet" to "loud" is analogous to "pale" to "bright", when it comes to visible light.
>>different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways ... Yep, different human cultures divide up the sound spectrum in different ways too ... So what ?
Some people have absolute pitch perception, allowing them to reproduce a musical tone, that they had heard exactly, even without knowing its proper name, just like some people can distinguish between color hues, that other people lump together as generic "pink", "green", "blue" or "yellow".
Having a vocabulary of specific names may ease learning/training, but it seems to me, that no matter how many different words for colors you teach a child with daltonism, the child will still fail a color blindness test.
>>different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways ... Yep, different human cultures divide up the sound spectrum in different ways too ... So what ?
Some people have absolute pitch perception, allowing them to reproduce a musical tone, that they had heard exactly, even without knowing its proper name, just like some people can distinguish between color hues, that other people lump together as generic "pink", "green", "blue" or "yellow".
Having a vocabulary of specific names may ease learning/training, but it seems to me, that no matter how many different words for colors you teach a child with daltonism, the child will still fail a color blindness test.
I'd suggest that it's not so much any colour is "unseeable" as it is "indistinguishable" for some or most people compared to similar colours. And since our perception of colour is relative to different contexts, that makes the research even harder to account for. That all said, an "unseeable" colour to my mind really refers to how if you put two very, very similar colours together, only some people can tell them apart, and perhaps more often once they've learned to recognize the difference? No idea how close I am to the mark, as I haven't listened to any of this or read much source material. But I would compare it to colourblindness -- just because in a certain context someone can't tell red from green doesn't mean it can't be objectively, absolutely measured as such. Which is to say, just because you can't perceive it yourself doesn't mean it can't be studied: either the perception (false or true) or the absolute measurements of reality.
>> you can't see a color you can't name
> Interesting idea, but untestable, therefore unscientific.
Astonishingly, it has been tested and falsified. Some people have color synesthesia: they experience various patterns as colors. For example, in number-color synesthesia, the person experiences numbers as having colors regardless of their literal visual color. For example, the numeral 7 might appear as a particular shade of green.
Some of these color synesthetes are color blind due to genetic defects in their light detectors. Nonetheless they appear to experience the full range of synesthesic colors including ones they have never seen by direct perception. One person called them Martian colors.
> Interesting idea, but untestable, therefore unscientific.
Astonishingly, it has been tested and falsified. Some people have color synesthesia: they experience various patterns as colors. For example, in number-color synesthesia, the person experiences numbers as having colors regardless of their literal visual color. For example, the numeral 7 might appear as a particular shade of green.
Some of these color synesthetes are color blind due to genetic defects in their light detectors. Nonetheless they appear to experience the full range of synesthesic colors including ones they have never seen by direct perception. One person called them Martian colors.
> which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name.
Then how did they get named in the first place?
Then how did they get named in the first place?
By other cultures. Example: show a set of color swatches all identical blue with one bluish green. Ask participants to indicate the exception. Speakers of languages with a blue-green distinction get it right essentially instantly (< 1 second); native speakers of languages without a blue-green distinction can take as much as 30 seconds and actually get it wrong (I.e., indicate one of the identical blue swatches)
How did the other cultures name them in the first place? Can't be turtles cultures all the way down the stack.
Children are amazing mimics.
If you interact with them in clever and intelligent ways, they seem to end up thinking similarly.
If you act reserved, prejudice and racist around them, sadly they also learn to mimic that as well.
If you interact with them in clever and intelligent ways, they seem to end up thinking similarly.
If you act reserved, prejudice and racist around them, sadly they also learn to mimic that as well.
Father of a 3.5 year old brought up using tons of "targeted talking" here: our son has a vocabulary and logical comprehension skills that are significantly beyond his peer group. As a result I'd noticed in the past that he prefers engaging with other adults in conversation over kids his age.
Yesterday was his first PTA meeting and the feedback from his teacher seemed to confirm it too. She narrated an incident when the class was being told about rocket firecracker that light Indian skies during the Diwali festival and our son was explaining to her why a rocket goes up ("it burns gunpowder"), or why it stops after a while ("the gunpowder runs out") and then why it falls back to earth ("gravity"). The rest of his class was more fascinated with the talk about firecrackers.
Her nuanced point was that our son tends to get ahead of ideas and actions by engaging in a to-and-fro conversation about the logic/explanation behind them, thus at times preventing him from enjoying or taking in the idea or action itself or talking with other kids his age.
One of her suggestions was to "explain less" and let our son figure out things on his own (easier said than done, because he's extremely inquisitive and persistent).
The larger point I'm trying to make is that high vocabulary can also act as a barrier in kids engaging with others their age. The article also hints at it, in a manner:
> Newell is proud that her daughter can spell her first and last names, recite her address and phone number, recognize and spell colors, and count to 200. She’s also frustrated that more of Alona’s peers can’t do the same.
Yesterday was his first PTA meeting and the feedback from his teacher seemed to confirm it too. She narrated an incident when the class was being told about rocket firecracker that light Indian skies during the Diwali festival and our son was explaining to her why a rocket goes up ("it burns gunpowder"), or why it stops after a while ("the gunpowder runs out") and then why it falls back to earth ("gravity"). The rest of his class was more fascinated with the talk about firecrackers.
Her nuanced point was that our son tends to get ahead of ideas and actions by engaging in a to-and-fro conversation about the logic/explanation behind them, thus at times preventing him from enjoying or taking in the idea or action itself or talking with other kids his age.
One of her suggestions was to "explain less" and let our son figure out things on his own (easier said than done, because he's extremely inquisitive and persistent).
The larger point I'm trying to make is that high vocabulary can also act as a barrier in kids engaging with others their age. The article also hints at it, in a manner:
> Newell is proud that her daughter can spell her first and last names, recite her address and phone number, recognize and spell colors, and count to 200. She’s also frustrated that more of Alona’s peers can’t do the same.
Could the teachers statement be rephrased in terms that the kid is developing analytical skills so quickly that they are dominating over the more "experiential" part of socializing with others? It seems that this kind of thing persists into adulthood, because I notice that it is hard to experience and analyze at the same time. For example, it is hard to read a book to experience the story and analyze the narrative structure at the same time. A similar point is described in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" that one can either listen to a musical piece as a whole (experientally) or as individual pieces, such as notes (analytically), but not both at the same time.
While I tend to think analytical skills are more important, it is probably not good to entirely neglect the skills to experience and "live in the moment" either, since that seems to be the foundation of many social skills.
While I tend to think analytical skills are more important, it is probably not good to entirely neglect the skills to experience and "live in the moment" either, since that seems to be the foundation of many social skills.
That's very well put and I tend to agree with it.
Well, I'm a shitty parent, but my kid turned out brilliant.
- No one, ever
I'm a great parent, but my kid's been pretty middling in his academics.
- No one, ever
Just the standard self-selection bias in response to an article with strong ego triggers (being a good parent/person, having high-achieving kids).
- No one, ever
I'm a great parent, but my kid's been pretty middling in his academics.
- No one, ever
Just the standard self-selection bias in response to an article with strong ego triggers (being a good parent/person, having high-achieving kids).
I'm a brilliant kid, but who cares, I had shitty parents.
- A lot of people I know.
- A lot of people I know.
Fascinating.
"Daddy? Why does the firecracker go up?" "That's a very interesting question! Why don't we try to find out. Let's remove individual parts of the firecracker one at a time and find out what makes it go!"
"Daddy? Why does the firecracker go up?" "That's a very interesting question! Why don't we try to find out. Let's remove individual parts of the firecracker one at a time and find out what makes it go!"
Right, being too far ahead of the curve can become an emotional handicap all its own. Too bad we can't put kids like that together in the same schools.
I'm not sure whether you meant that sarcastically. If you did, I'm not at all a supporter of segregated schooling of any kind, be it class, 'abilities' or even neighbourhoods. There's value in kids growing up in a heterogeneous and diverse environment, and my comment was only meant to highlight how having an advanced vocabulary can sometimes hinder that.
Do you feel the same way about segregating individual classes by age? Having an advanced vocabulary is much less of an impediment if you're in a heterogenous and diverse environment which includes a diversity of ages.
Fundamentally, yes. But practically, I can appreciate schools who find it the least-worst filter to group children into classrooms. Our son's school has weekly mixed-age sessions, but I don't think they can become the norm.
My parents were from very disadvantaged backgrounds HOWEVER they did talk to me, a LOT.
I don't know if they knew what they were doing per se, but that's what they did.
Everyone always and still does consider me "smart." I went to college, became a software engineer, etc... Always had a curiosity for everything.
I never realized how exceptional I was until now. All my friends and family that have kids, their kids don't seem to talk hardly at all. They really aren't asked many questions at all. They aren't asked to recite their address, phone number, spell their name, count to 100. The difference between them and me at their age is very dramatic. I know how I acted at that age because videos exist of me since birth.
I don't know if they knew what they were doing per se, but that's what they did.
Everyone always and still does consider me "smart." I went to college, became a software engineer, etc... Always had a curiosity for everything.
I never realized how exceptional I was until now. All my friends and family that have kids, their kids don't seem to talk hardly at all. They really aren't asked many questions at all. They aren't asked to recite their address, phone number, spell their name, count to 100. The difference between them and me at their age is very dramatic. I know how I acted at that age because videos exist of me since birth.
The barrier is something I noticed in people who like to learn for learning's sake. The more I learn, the more I set myself apart from the crowd. I find that seeking out others who like to learn is the only solution (aside from becoming a teacher of some sort, which I'd guess is a bit more lonely yet at the same time self-gratifying).
Knowledge is like money, the more you have the less you have in common with the gen. pop.
Knowledge is like money, the more you have the less you have in common with the gen. pop.
Believing everyone is tabula rasa when it comes to intelligence is one of those white lies society tells itself to make itself feel better. Of course the environment one grows up in is important but this article is kidding itself into thinking it is the primary factor.
We inherit so many other traits from our parents, why should intelligence be any different? What makes it so special that it requires a convoluted explanation that rests on so many assumptions?
We inherit so many other traits from our parents, why should intelligence be any different? What makes it so special that it requires a convoluted explanation that rests on so many assumptions?
Why should it be different from other traits? Well, we don't really understand the genetics of physical height. Why should we be so certain we understand the genetics of intelligence when we barely even understand intelligence itself?
What do we know? Getting Malaria in childhood reduces IQ by a few points. Resistance to Malaria is partly genetic. Are these genetic factors now a genetic basis for Intelligence? Shouldn't we just vaccinate the children and eliminate the problem?
We know that in developing countries, every month in school increases IQ and earning potential. Should we assume and accept genetic factors in school attendance as inevitable or should we just require attendance?
We know that in Africa, using cheap deworming agents in school children two times a year will increase their intelligence and school attendance. Are there genetic factors in resistance against worms? Does it matter where the particular ethnicity lives? Sure. Should we care? Not really.
The image that emerges is: Once you hold the environment pretty constant, as has been done in twin studies (regarding to the above known factors at least), IQ is largely genetic.
But making decisions on the basis of assumptions about the genetic basis intelligence is at the very least quite stupid.
What do we know? Getting Malaria in childhood reduces IQ by a few points. Resistance to Malaria is partly genetic. Are these genetic factors now a genetic basis for Intelligence? Shouldn't we just vaccinate the children and eliminate the problem?
We know that in developing countries, every month in school increases IQ and earning potential. Should we assume and accept genetic factors in school attendance as inevitable or should we just require attendance?
We know that in Africa, using cheap deworming agents in school children two times a year will increase their intelligence and school attendance. Are there genetic factors in resistance against worms? Does it matter where the particular ethnicity lives? Sure. Should we care? Not really.
The image that emerges is: Once you hold the environment pretty constant, as has been done in twin studies (regarding to the above known factors at least), IQ is largely genetic.
But making decisions on the basis of assumptions about the genetic basis intelligence is at the very least quite stupid.
I have (3) children. I had heard this statement before they were born. I have made a oncerted effort to verbally engage my kids all the time.
I have some smart kids. I believe this very much. I have a 9yo 2yo and a newborn.
Both my 9 and 2yo are very smart, however, there is an important piece to this that needs comment: Teaching your children attention discipline. I have been using computers daily since 3rd grade. I am 38 years old. I have chronic ADHD.
It is important to engage your kids conversationally from the time they are born, but to also ensure they can sit and focus. WIth my older daughter, this was accomplished by requiring reading sessions and zero screen time daily.
I have some smart kids. I believe this very much. I have a 9yo 2yo and a newborn.
Both my 9 and 2yo are very smart, however, there is an important piece to this that needs comment: Teaching your children attention discipline. I have been using computers daily since 3rd grade. I am 38 years old. I have chronic ADHD.
It is important to engage your kids conversationally from the time they are born, but to also ensure they can sit and focus. WIth my older daughter, this was accomplished by requiring reading sessions and zero screen time daily.
Except for deaf children, who seem to fall along the same IQ distribution as hearing children. And rich children seem to inherit their parents IQs instead of their Guatemalan nannies' IQs.
But feel free to go on believing that genes don't do anything. God just must have created everyone equal.
But feel free to go on believing that genes don't do anything. God just must have created everyone equal.
[deleted]
I'm not sure how you can do this kind of social research and be absolutely sure about the results you'll find, apart from taking a sample, measuring and trying to concatenate one fact with the other.
What nobody knows is the exact weight of this factor in the unknown equation which governs human intelligence. Hence from a scientific point of view:
"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations […] may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be." - Roger Cotes.
Excerpt from the preface to Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, second edition, 1713.
What nobody knows is the exact weight of this factor in the unknown equation which governs human intelligence. Hence from a scientific point of view:
"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations […] may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be." - Roger Cotes.
Excerpt from the preface to Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, second edition, 1713.
I agree with the article but the title on HN is terrible, and needs to be changed. The article says that talking with, and reading to, your kids improves their verbal skills and makes them able to better process information. Who could argue with that? My mom would read to me all the time when I was younger. She would read to me books she liked, classic scifi and such. I enjoyed them very much, even though they weren't written for kids. She would talk about the stories with me and explain some things I did not get. I think that helped quite a bit with my language skills. However, that's in noway negates the fact that some kids are simply smarter genetically then others. Paying attention to your kid and talking with them would greatly increase their abilities, but all kids aren't borne equal, and I don't think the article makes that argument, unlike the title. It should be changed to "Talking to kids greatly increases their cognitive abilities."
I think having kids be exposed to several other languages as soon as they are borne, and reading to them books you personally like and find interesting helps them immensely (obviously filter out explicit content, old classics are usually good). It's also important not to dumb things down for kids. Basically Teletubbies = bad, family friendly comedy in a foreign language = good.
In a side note I also find it infuriating how economists always make an argument that women should go back into the workforce after having kids, because its good for the family and for the economy. But what about the kid. I don't want to single out women, but I think either the mother or the father should take at least 5 years off, after the birth of their child, to raise their child, instead of hiring a nanny. I understand that it's not fair to always ask the women to do it, but some one in the family should. It's not always an option, but more often then not its the children of the wealthy that you see being raised by nannies. Ok, that's getting off topic.
I think having kids be exposed to several other languages as soon as they are borne, and reading to them books you personally like and find interesting helps them immensely (obviously filter out explicit content, old classics are usually good). It's also important not to dumb things down for kids. Basically Teletubbies = bad, family friendly comedy in a foreign language = good.
In a side note I also find it infuriating how economists always make an argument that women should go back into the workforce after having kids, because its good for the family and for the economy. But what about the kid. I don't want to single out women, but I think either the mother or the father should take at least 5 years off, after the birth of their child, to raise their child, instead of hiring a nanny. I understand that it's not fair to always ask the women to do it, but some one in the family should. It's not always an option, but more often then not its the children of the wealthy that you see being raised by nannies. Ok, that's getting off topic.
None of the results in this article warrants the conclusion in the title.
The fact that "children from affluent families were starting to speak after implant surgery, those from low-income families lagged behind." can simply be explained by genetics. I.e., affluent parents tend to have affluent children, even if those children are raised by other parents [1, 2].
All the cited study does is measure how much the vocabulary of the _caregivers_ increased due to linguistic feedback methods.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture [2] E.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21425893
The fact that "children from affluent families were starting to speak after implant surgery, those from low-income families lagged behind." can simply be explained by genetics. I.e., affluent parents tend to have affluent children, even if those children are raised by other parents [1, 2].
All the cited study does is measure how much the vocabulary of the _caregivers_ increased due to linguistic feedback methods.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture [2] E.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21425893
I think this article is about much more than nature vs. nurture and it doesn't deserve to be trolled that way.
We can learn a lot about ourselves, language and how we learn from understanding a bit about those born deaf. It really is a big deal and Oliver Sacks gets to the heart of the matter in his excellent book 'Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf':
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0330523643/
A highly recommended read for anyone on HN...
The article also mentions nannies. A problem they have that the parents aren't ever made aware of is what happens when the child uses big meaningful words for the first time. The nanny wants the parents to be the first to hear these words rather than merely report back to the parents that said big meaningful words have been said. So praise cannot always be given by a nanny when praise is deserved.
Although the article says that quality conversation is important, the metric seems to be quantity of words. After a certain developmental stage I am not sure how helpful quantity actually is. There are plenty of adults that I have met over the years that can babble on and babble on. If you are actually trying to concentrate on something then having a constant babbler around is just so not what you need. I consider myself to be a bit of a rambler but not a constant babbler. However, I cannot engage with a toddler in the way a constant babbler can. I go quiet on the two year old whereas the babbler does not.
Further down the line I think that the dinner table offers an amazing opportunity for children to improve their vocabulary, engage in conversation, learn when to listen and when to talk. This is particularly the case when parents have adult guests and allow young children to be on the same table eating the same food. Here the nurture comes from extended family and friends. I feel slightly sorry for friends that did not get this during their formative years, even if they did have more time in restaurants (which are posh and grown up).
We can learn a lot about ourselves, language and how we learn from understanding a bit about those born deaf. It really is a big deal and Oliver Sacks gets to the heart of the matter in his excellent book 'Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf':
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0330523643/
A highly recommended read for anyone on HN...
The article also mentions nannies. A problem they have that the parents aren't ever made aware of is what happens when the child uses big meaningful words for the first time. The nanny wants the parents to be the first to hear these words rather than merely report back to the parents that said big meaningful words have been said. So praise cannot always be given by a nanny when praise is deserved.
Although the article says that quality conversation is important, the metric seems to be quantity of words. After a certain developmental stage I am not sure how helpful quantity actually is. There are plenty of adults that I have met over the years that can babble on and babble on. If you are actually trying to concentrate on something then having a constant babbler around is just so not what you need. I consider myself to be a bit of a rambler but not a constant babbler. However, I cannot engage with a toddler in the way a constant babbler can. I go quiet on the two year old whereas the babbler does not.
Further down the line I think that the dinner table offers an amazing opportunity for children to improve their vocabulary, engage in conversation, learn when to listen and when to talk. This is particularly the case when parents have adult guests and allow young children to be on the same table eating the same food. Here the nurture comes from extended family and friends. I feel slightly sorry for friends that did not get this during their formative years, even if they did have more time in restaurants (which are posh and grown up).
The never ending nature versus nurture debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
I've seen many similarities with the group of friends I grew up with. Did we grow up and become more like each other or was our similarity (temperament, values) something that brought us together in the first place?
For example I was the first in our father's side of family to go into higher ed, but everyone in my group of pre-18 school friends ended up there. Many other groups in our school were characterized by other things like marrying young or seeking traditional blue collar jobs.
At least there was plenty of time for conversations to mold our thoughts. Parents might actually account for less than friends.
For example I was the first in our father's side of family to go into higher ed, but everyone in my group of pre-18 school friends ended up there. Many other groups in our school were characterized by other things like marrying young or seeking traditional blue collar jobs.
At least there was plenty of time for conversations to mold our thoughts. Parents might actually account for less than friends.
I would think little kids today don't get talked to as much as they did in the past because many or most have single mothers with jobs and few or no siblings, whereas the baby boomers had a dad and a stay at home mom and lots of siblings. And they had nothing to do but talk to each other, since you couldn't spend all day staring at screens then.
If this is correct, developments in the last several decades should have been a cognitive disaster. Afaik they weren't.
If this is correct, developments in the last several decades should have been a cognitive disaster. Afaik they weren't.
Interesting tidbit: The Chinese phrase for smart, "聪明" quite literally means "clear hearing".
This may have already been mentioned, but (at least in my opinion) its not as much about conversation as it is about stimuli.
Stimulating children's brains through conversation && || other means is what allows/makes/(stimulates) the brain to grow and learn.
Stimulating children's brains through conversation && || other means is what allows/makes/(stimulates) the brain to grow and learn.
I feel something is wrong about this article. In it early language is depicted as a fundamental block of building intelligence. I also think that's true, so i find shocking that a cochlear implant is presented as a first step to enable this in deaf children.
Signs language is the tool they should be using and writting about. Childrens can comunicate earlier than they can make proper sounds (talk). By teaching sign language early to deaf AND hearing kid, you have a complex language they can use earlier than spoken languages. Check this video of a 2 years old having an engaged conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o8Z2lzS764
My wife is an experienced sign language interpreter and I lost hearing of one ear so we both are in contact with deaf people. We are actively teaching our hearing 8 months old daugther signs. I can already notice how she stares at me when moving my hands around, but this is probably a first time dad thing ;)
On the other hand, cochlear implants create a low definition channel compared to sign language, it's created later, and the surgery it's not easy. I've met plenty of deaf people with they implants permanently turned off. The electrical impulses generated by the implant are a minimal fraction of what a normal ear does. It's still a very rudimentary tech.
I'm not saying parents should not implant their deafs kids. I wouldn't, but if they choose to they shouldn't private the child of early sign language because of it.
Signs language is the tool they should be using and writting about. Childrens can comunicate earlier than they can make proper sounds (talk). By teaching sign language early to deaf AND hearing kid, you have a complex language they can use earlier than spoken languages. Check this video of a 2 years old having an engaged conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o8Z2lzS764
My wife is an experienced sign language interpreter and I lost hearing of one ear so we both are in contact with deaf people. We are actively teaching our hearing 8 months old daugther signs. I can already notice how she stares at me when moving my hands around, but this is probably a first time dad thing ;)
On the other hand, cochlear implants create a low definition channel compared to sign language, it's created later, and the surgery it's not easy. I've met plenty of deaf people with they implants permanently turned off. The electrical impulses generated by the implant are a minimal fraction of what a normal ear does. It's still a very rudimentary tech.
I'm not saying parents should not implant their deafs kids. I wouldn't, but if they choose to they shouldn't private the child of early sign language because of it.
It also helps to have an engaged and decedt dad around. As a generalization, moms tend to be more protective and dads tend to be more "come on and grow up already".
Children need to be treated like they are real people and encouraged to make good, responsible decisions of their own accord, not just be ordered around like they are troublesome objects. That means parents need to be responsible stewards of their children.
Children need to be treated like they are real people and encouraged to make good, responsible decisions of their own accord, not just be ordered around like they are troublesome objects. That means parents need to be responsible stewards of their children.