[untitled]
15 comments
To follow up, we posted this last night just before bed time. When he woke up this morning, I showed him how many comments there were in this discussion and showed him the page you created. He got a huge smile on his face.
By the time I left for work, he was playing Rescue Heroes with his brother. :)
Thank you, everyone, for the words of encouragement and the constructive criticisms. I agree that just mindlessly praising anything a kid does can be bad, and I immediately thought of many of the criticisms raised here when my son made told me his idea. However, I wanted to present his idea without any editing or adornment on my part, because then it wouldn't be his idea any longer.
I will definitely save this discussion and go over it with my son again later when he's better able to grasp the arguments. I find that, when introducing a new idea, it doesn't seem to totally "take" at first. However, a few days later, it somehow has been fully absorbed and he's able to generalize and make appropriate inferences from the idea.
Thanks again!
By the time I left for work, he was playing Rescue Heroes with his brother. :)
Thank you, everyone, for the words of encouragement and the constructive criticisms. I agree that just mindlessly praising anything a kid does can be bad, and I immediately thought of many of the criticisms raised here when my son made told me his idea. However, I wanted to present his idea without any editing or adornment on my part, because then it wouldn't be his idea any longer.
I will definitely save this discussion and go over it with my son again later when he's better able to grasp the arguments. I find that, when introducing a new idea, it doesn't seem to totally "take" at first. However, a few days later, it somehow has been fully absorbed and he's able to generalize and make appropriate inferences from the idea.
Thanks again!
Get him to read this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
Seriously though, what do you expect to gain by posting this here?
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
Seriously though, what do you expect to gain by posting this here?
> Seriously though, what do you expect to gain by posting this here?
Karma? ;)
Karma? ;)
Tell him, "For the Quadrupillionth time, go clean your room!"
Isaac Asimov has written quite a bit on large numbers. He writes about T-numbers in "Adding a dimension". Where T-1 is a trilion, and T-2 is a trilion trilion. For instance, T-2 nucleons are a few grams of mass, and T-5 nucleons are a thousand solar systems. Big numbers indeed.
In Skewered he describes a different large-number system (http://www.scribd.com/doc/275741/Isaac-Asimov-Skewered).
Asimov's facination with big numbers lasted a lifetime.
In Skewered he describes a different large-number system (http://www.scribd.com/doc/275741/Isaac-Asimov-Skewered).
Asimov's facination with big numbers lasted a lifetime.
This reminds me of a question that a university lecturer of mine asked.. "Tell me the biggest number you can think of"
Just try it. :)
It's actually not that easy, since there are always more numbers that are bigger. The challenge is around describing these large numbers using the minimum amount of information possible.
He went on to talk about the 'Busy Beaver' problem which is all about turing machines and all kinds of interesting stuff.
Has anyone here studied Busy Beavers before?
Just try it. :)
It's actually not that easy, since there are always more numbers that are bigger. The challenge is around describing these large numbers using the minimum amount of information possible.
He went on to talk about the 'Busy Beaver' problem which is all about turing machines and all kinds of interesting stuff.
Has anyone here studied Busy Beavers before?
Yes. Scott Aaronson has some good writing on those.
Tell him that's a good start.
Then encourage him to go deeper than just new names for the same kinds of numbers we already know and come up with a whole new kind of number. E.g. http://www-cs-staff.stanford.edu/~uno/sn.html
That could get the discussion going on what a number really is and what sorts of things could be numbers if only the rules were a little different.
Then encourage him to go deeper than just new names for the same kinds of numbers we already know and come up with a whole new kind of number. E.g. http://www-cs-staff.stanford.edu/~uno/sn.html
That could get the discussion going on what a number really is and what sorts of things could be numbers if only the rules were a little different.
I would suggest that "imagination" as a mere flight of fancy isn't the only thing to be considered here. I would imagine it took considerable imagination for Einstein to develop the theory of relativity, or for Bach to write the St. Matthew Passion, but neither did so without referring to a lot of structure and knowledge that they already had.
"Quadrupillion" implies four of something, when actually it's a googolplex plus a hundred (This actually is a pretty damn useless number unless the number (googolplex+100) turned out to be very important to some particular idea or occurrence, but that's less important to my point). It would be better to tell the child this, and explain about the quad- prefix, and suggest a better name for his number. As for its uselessness, I imagine that this will become apparent to him quite quickly, so that doesn't matter so much in terms of what to explain to the child.
"Quadrupillion" implies four of something, when actually it's a googolplex plus a hundred (This actually is a pretty damn useless number unless the number (googolplex+100) turned out to be very important to some particular idea or occurrence, but that's less important to my point). It would be better to tell the child this, and explain about the quad- prefix, and suggest a better name for his number. As for its uselessness, I imagine that this will become apparent to him quite quickly, so that doesn't matter so much in terms of what to explain to the child.
Get him some good interesting math books. A few suggestions:
One, Two, Three, Infinity by George Gamow. The World of Mathematics [4 volume set] edited by James Newman and, perhaps in a few years, What Is Mathematics, by Courant and Robbins and Symbolic Logic, by Suzanne Langer
all books that I remember from my own childhood with great fondness.
One, Two, Three, Infinity by George Gamow. The World of Mathematics [4 volume set] edited by James Newman and, perhaps in a few years, What Is Mathematics, by Courant and Robbins and Symbolic Logic, by Suzanne Langer
all books that I remember from my own childhood with great fondness.
For what its worth, it made me smile. Hope the kid's imagination continues to grow and think of new, wild, sometimes impossible but always interesting ideas :)
so since many of us are hackers that want to be entrepreneurs we all need to learn how to sell. maybe you could start teaching your kid the art of persuasion and reasoned argument. don't shoot him down, instead help him actually write a convincing argument for the number, guide him to think about the process of creation and the process of getting stake holders, and evangelists to help carry the idea. At some point he will either learn how to sell ice to eskemos or he will think of a better idea to sell.
i do have to admit that i was frustrated with my dad not going through the process with me, as i really just wanted the attention doing something creative and fun, rather than sports, etc.... instead he got me the internet.
i say spend time with your kid and help him learn how to develop a pitch.
i do have to admit that i was frustrated with my dad not going through the process with me, as i really just wanted the attention doing something creative and fun, rather than sports, etc.... instead he got me the internet.
i say spend time with your kid and help him learn how to develop a pitch.
put it in wikipedia, get a few blogger pals to reference (preferrably with the definition tags) it in their blogs, and use it in daily conversation and you have yourself a number.
a couple blogs aren't enough for Wikipedia, you need a mainstream media hit... know any local newspaper writers?
get a decent handful of blogs together. the point would be to get the definition to show up in google's define, here:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3AQuadrupillion
i think you could make a case to insert it into wikipedia if you can get on that page, and it probably isn't that hard to do if you set your mind to it :)
http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3AQuadrupillion
i think you could make a case to insert it into wikipedia if you can get on that page, and it probably isn't that hard to do if you set your mind to it :)
I'm an extreme Wikipedia inclusionist, but unfortunately that is not the rule on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
Why don't all the extreme wikipedia inclusionists start their own, more inclusive, wiki? One with a page for every random idea that anybody's six-year-old kid ever has?
I'm serious.
I'm serious.
Yeah, hard disk space is cheap. excluding stuff is dumb. if you want visitors to find high quality articles then make the search box work well. google doesn't exclude webpages for lack of notability. their bar is low and they make up for it by knowing which things are more or less notable.
Actually, if you start making pages for every not-particularly-interesting integer on the order of a googolplex, you'll quickly find out that hard disk space isn't cheap any more.
I think your son is on to something; can he think of a neat example? e.g. there are over a quadrupillion ads on the internet.
No there aren't.
There really aren't a quadrupillion of anything. not anything physical anyway. The number of particles in the visible universe is only on the order of 10^80.
Of course there are some examples. There's a quadrupillion ways to organize N balls into M separate piles (for some values of N and M which I'm too lazy to figure out now). There's a quadrupillion possible English sentences of less than M' words.
A six-year-old, even a clever one, doesn't really have the capabilities to understand these kinds of scales though. In fact, you can see from the fact that he chose "a hundred" as a big number which could be added to a googolplex that he's still at the age where he thinks "a hundred" is a huge number. I remember being that age too.
Of course there are some examples. There's a quadrupillion ways to organize N balls into M separate piles (for some values of N and M which I'm too lazy to figure out now). There's a quadrupillion possible English sentences of less than M' words.
A six-year-old, even a clever one, doesn't really have the capabilities to understand these kinds of scales though. In fact, you can see from the fact that he chose "a hundred" as a big number which could be added to a googolplex that he's still at the age where he thinks "a hundred" is a huge number. I remember being that age too.
It's not a very useful number. The name is very misleading because it uses the wrong prefix, and why is having a word for this particular number valuable? Just say a googolplex+100 instead on the very rare occasions you want to refer to this particular number.
Agreed, as a number it's not terribly useful, and in fact counterproductive for the reasons xlnt describes. Obviously you probably don't want to tell your son that, but as gojomo cautions, you might not want to praise him for it, either. (Edit: That is, if you do offer praise/encouragement, you'll want to do so in a way that avoids giving him false hopes that his number will become the next googol.)
The thing is, simply naming a number isn't a great achievement, not even on the part of the mathematician's nephew who came up with 'googol'. It makes for an interesting story, but the thought processes involved are about as relevant to thinking mathematically as naming a pet dog is to understanding canine biology. But the initiative to name things is certainly valuable, and well worth reinforcing.
The trick here is to lead your son towards an interest in the properties of numbers and away from any potential delusions of grandeur dependent on being the next 'googol' kid. Alternatively, or in concert with emphasizing the properties of numbers, you could also interest him in the properties of language and word construction, which he seems to have an aptitude for. Granted, your six year old would be pretty exceptional if you could get him interested in either!
The thing is, simply naming a number isn't a great achievement, not even on the part of the mathematician's nephew who came up with 'googol'. It makes for an interesting story, but the thought processes involved are about as relevant to thinking mathematically as naming a pet dog is to understanding canine biology. But the initiative to name things is certainly valuable, and well worth reinforcing.
The trick here is to lead your son towards an interest in the properties of numbers and away from any potential delusions of grandeur dependent on being the next 'googol' kid. Alternatively, or in concert with emphasizing the properties of numbers, you could also interest him in the properties of language and word construction, which he seems to have an aptitude for. Granted, your six year old would be pretty exceptional if you could get him interested in either!
This is how one spoils a playful idea, and how imaginations fade.
I think you can impart reason and judgment without killing imagination.
Not in a six year old.
It's called child development. Heard of it? Because if the child isn't old enough to gain reason and judgement you are just killing creativity, for no benefit. What age do reason and judgement hone to the right degree?
Not 6, thats for damn sure. This is depressing.
I could just see jraines and xlnt with a toddler. xlnt: "Now, Joey, it's Da-dee, not da-da. It's important to pronounce things preciesly" jraines: "I think you can impart precision without killing the kids language skills"
It's called child development. Heard of it? Because if the child isn't old enough to gain reason and judgement you are just killing creativity, for no benefit. What age do reason and judgement hone to the right degree?
Not 6, thats for damn sure. This is depressing.
I could just see jraines and xlnt with a toddler. xlnt: "Now, Joey, it's Da-dee, not da-da. It's important to pronounce things preciesly" jraines: "I think you can impart precision without killing the kids language skills"
"hone to the right degree" what does that mean, exactly? Did someone forget to impart precision to you, ever? And how are you so sure that 6 is "for damn sure" to old? I was in a gifted program at 6, and I don't remember much about it except crying at some of the problems I couldn't solve, and nobody came and shoved rainbows up my ass to make me feel better about it, and I'm thankful they didn't.
When I was 4 I liked chess. By the time I was 6 I reasonably often beat my parents at chess, and had improved quite a lot. Doesn't chess require reason and judgment?
By your logic, one could have seriously hampered your self confidence by suggesting that your reasoning about this is faulty, and the only reason you beat your parents at chess was because they werent very good at it.
I dont mean to be coming across as rude, but I believe the better way to handle the six year old is to encourage the process of creativity and imagination. There are enough people in his life (at least a Quadrupillion!!) that will try to tell him that hes being impractical and unrealistic, no need to add to that count.
I dont mean to be coming across as rude, but I believe the better way to handle the six year old is to encourage the process of creativity and imagination. There are enough people in his life (at least a Quadrupillion!!) that will try to tell him that hes being impractical and unrealistic, no need to add to that count.
Another textbook autistic trait.
This kid isn't wired like you. Normal children do not have those reasoning abilities at that age. You can't reasonably project from your experience to his, but are more likely to, because that's how people with autistic traits relate.
This kid isn't wired like you. Normal children do not have those reasoning abilities at that age. You can't reasonably project from your experience to his, but are more likely to, because that's how people with autistic traits relate.
You can be a 4 year old chess prodigy without any autistic like traits. There are normal well developed chess prodigies. Also the phenomenon of Go Prodigies in Asia
The problem comes when the child can't choose for themselves if they want to focus intensely on something like chess. The most important thing about raising a very smart child is to let them them make their own decisions and expose them to different appropriate things they can do with their intelligence.
It's completely possible to be able to play chess and enjoy it, in a sense, at 6 without being autistic.
"You would be shitty parents and you're autistic". Nice line of argument.
"You would be shitty parents and you're autistic". Nice line of argument.
How do you know how that kid is wired?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The original poster did not say how this child is wired.
I think that parental expectations of children to dislike criticism is a large factor in why they usually grow up to dislike it.
I think that parental expectations of children to dislike criticism is a large factor in why they usually grow up to dislike it.
The original poster indicated the child was engaged in spontaneous sharing, which indicates the child isn't on the spectrum. (Spontaneous sharing requires an ability to model the reaction of the person you share with, which requires the mirror neurons thought to be deficient in the autistic spectrum)
Again, (and I don't mean any of this to sound harsh) your thoughts are not too relevant, because you can't use your kind of reasoning here.
My dad (who is on the spectrum) ended up being horribly abusive to me throughout my childhood and teenage years because of thinking a lot like this. I don't want to conflate you and him, just to warn you that there is a really big trap it's easy for people with your personality traits to fall into around being overly logical, the projection that people with deficient mirror neurons have to resort to for relating to people, and how to treat and raise kids.
You should recognize that you need the help of a person who doesn't share your mind-blindness to make appropriate judgements about children and how to relate to them. You absolutely cannot figure out how to treat kids on your own if you are on the spectrum. Using your logic, you should recognize it doesn't apply, and that you need a tool that isn't in your toolbox. Either a person who does have that skill who you listen to, or enough study of child psychology to reason your way to the right way to treat neurotypical kids.
Again, (and I don't mean any of this to sound harsh) your thoughts are not too relevant, because you can't use your kind of reasoning here.
My dad (who is on the spectrum) ended up being horribly abusive to me throughout my childhood and teenage years because of thinking a lot like this. I don't want to conflate you and him, just to warn you that there is a really big trap it's easy for people with your personality traits to fall into around being overly logical, the projection that people with deficient mirror neurons have to resort to for relating to people, and how to treat and raise kids.
You should recognize that you need the help of a person who doesn't share your mind-blindness to make appropriate judgements about children and how to relate to them. You absolutely cannot figure out how to treat kids on your own if you are on the spectrum. Using your logic, you should recognize it doesn't apply, and that you need a tool that isn't in your toolbox. Either a person who does have that skill who you listen to, or enough study of child psychology to reason your way to the right way to treat neurotypical kids.
You're making so many blind assumptions about Autism Spectrum Disorders and people you're conversing with here.
" You should recognize that you need the help of a person who doesn't share your mind-blindness to make appropriate judgements about children and how to relate to them. You absolutely cannot figure out how to treat kids on your own if you are on the spectrum."
That is so disgustingly far from an objective statement.
" You should recognize that you need the help of a person who doesn't share your mind-blindness to make appropriate judgements about children and how to relate to them. You absolutely cannot figure out how to treat kids on your own if you are on the spectrum."
That is so disgustingly far from an objective statement.
Yes and no. I was trying to make one small point and it kind of blew up into a thesis or something. I didn't mean for that to happen, and didn't work enough into the first things I wrote to support where the thread turned.
That sounds awful out of context (which I probably failed to convey well). I was speaking particularly to xlnt, directly in response to things he said that saliently reminded me of the justifications my autistic father used to feel like he was doing the right thing during the years when he was extremely (and, importantly) unknowingly abusive to me, with the intention of challenging that part of his worldview. I didn't mean 'you' in any more universal sense then that, and I most certainly didn't mean it in the way you are reading it. I should of more carefully limited the scope of what I was saying to him, and made a point of mentioning that many autistic people are naturally great and understanding with kids. I'm not a great writer, so I'm sorry for that. Also, this discussion was going on for a while way down-thread and then this branch started, so you may have read the discussion out of chronological order.
People who talk about raising kids as if they were robots, and their job is to use logic to make sure the robot always gives precisely the right output for it's own good later on need help raising kids. That much is undoubtedly true. You are reading me as meaning something I didn't mean.
That sounds awful out of context (which I probably failed to convey well). I was speaking particularly to xlnt, directly in response to things he said that saliently reminded me of the justifications my autistic father used to feel like he was doing the right thing during the years when he was extremely (and, importantly) unknowingly abusive to me, with the intention of challenging that part of his worldview. I didn't mean 'you' in any more universal sense then that, and I most certainly didn't mean it in the way you are reading it. I should of more carefully limited the scope of what I was saying to him, and made a point of mentioning that many autistic people are naturally great and understanding with kids. I'm not a great writer, so I'm sorry for that. Also, this discussion was going on for a while way down-thread and then this branch started, so you may have read the discussion out of chronological order.
People who talk about raising kids as if they were robots, and their job is to use logic to make sure the robot always gives precisely the right output for it's own good later on need help raising kids. That much is undoubtedly true. You are reading me as meaning something I didn't mean.
>People who talk about raising kids as if they were robots, and their job is to use logic to make sure the robot always gives precisely the right output for it's own good later on need help raising kids
This is an argument about thinking versus feeling on the MBTI scale and you can't reduce something along those axises to right and wrong... raising kids is more complicated than that.
This is also ad hominem because xlnt is not talking about raising kids like they are robots; he believes it is best to treat them like people. You are misunderstanding his actual beliefs because you are stuck on an argument of little meaning. http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ This is the philosophy in question, debate that if you want.
This is an argument about thinking versus feeling on the MBTI scale and you can't reduce something along those axises to right and wrong... raising kids is more complicated than that.
This is also ad hominem because xlnt is not talking about raising kids like they are robots; he believes it is best to treat them like people. You are misunderstanding his actual beliefs because you are stuck on an argument of little meaning. http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ This is the philosophy in question, debate that if you want.
"People who talk about raising kids as if they were robots, and their job is to use logic to make sure the robot always gives precisely the right output for it's own good later on need help raising kids."
I do, mostly and personally, agree with that. Though I would say it's generally the right of the parent to raise the child as the parent sees fit, within reason of course.
I do, mostly and personally, agree with that. Though I would say it's generally the right of the parent to raise the child as the parent sees fit, within reason of course.
Would I be correct to say that your comments/position are not specific to how to treat children? Any sort of autistic/non-autistic communication gap would be the same if one or both persons was an adult.
PS would you like to continue this by AIM or email? curi42 / [email protected]
PS would you like to continue this by AIM or email? curi42 / [email protected]
Incorrect. It's possible for autistic adults to relate well to non-autistic adults in many circumstances (discussing technical things at work, for example, or discussing common interests) without the extra effort. There will always be some sort of gap, but it's not always even that big of a deal. My comments are particular to children both because they are more at risk of being inadvertently harmed, and because they have less (in some cases, no) compensatory defense mechanisms.
I don't use AIM but I will drop you an email after I get off my ass for a half hour and grab something to eat from my trailer.
I don't use AIM but I will drop you an email after I get off my ass for a half hour and grab something to eat from my trailer.
You should recognize that you need the help of a person who doesn't share your mind-blindness to make appropriate judgements about children and how to relate to them. You absolutely cannot figure out how to treat kids on your own if you are on the spectrum.
So suppose we take the list of all the people who have similar views to me, on these issues. Then we go through the list and check if each person is autistic. If we find one who isn't autistic, then can we count these as valid positions?
So suppose we take the list of all the people who have similar views to me, on these issues. Then we go through the list and check if each person is autistic. If we find one who isn't autistic, then can we count these as valid positions?
No, because a non-autistic person can use their mirror neurons to imitate the behavior a person who has it. (This is the mechanism by which all of human culture evolved).
I'll drop you that email, maybe we are getting too far off topic.
I'll drop you that email, maybe we are getting too far off topic.
Then again, reflexive praise regardless of the merits of a child's idea can be harmful, too...
"How Not to Talk to Your Kids: The inverse power of praise"
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
"How Not to Talk to Your Kids: The inverse power of praise"
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
Agreed. I suppose the important thing is to give praise in the right way. I think ideally praise should be phrased in such a way that gives them some gratification for doing what they've done, while challenging them to see if they can do something more.
In this case, the kid has exercised enough creativity to realise that he can make up his own numbers, but not enough critical thinking to realise that the space of large numbers is huge enough that not every number should have a special name. Ideally, you'd want to use this as an opportunity to challenge the kid to see if he can work this out for himself. Ask him what other numbers he can think of, like a googolplex plus a thousand, or a googolplex minus one hundred, and see if he can figure out that there are far more numbers than there could possibly be catchy names for. Since the "interestingness" of that particular large number is apparent only in base ten, you could even use this as an opportunity to introduce him to other bases (or better still, to see if he can surmise their existence for himself).
In this case, the kid has exercised enough creativity to realise that he can make up his own numbers, but not enough critical thinking to realise that the space of large numbers is huge enough that not every number should have a special name. Ideally, you'd want to use this as an opportunity to challenge the kid to see if he can work this out for himself. Ask him what other numbers he can think of, like a googolplex plus a thousand, or a googolplex minus one hundred, and see if he can figure out that there are far more numbers than there could possibly be catchy names for. Since the "interestingness" of that particular large number is apparent only in base ten, you could even use this as an opportunity to introduce him to other bases (or better still, to see if he can surmise their existence for himself).
In this situation, there are things worth reinforcing (playing with language, initiative to name things, thinking about numbers), and some things that are not (false hopes of 'quadrupillion' becoming the next 'googol', or that significant contributions can be made so easily--the whole googol thing was serendipitous, not meritorious).
It's a tricky situation, and I'm not sure what the best way to handle it is. But neither blind, effusive praise nor cold, harsh rejection are the best ways to go, here. If you had to pick one over the other, blind effusive praise it is, but there's definitely a middle ground here, one that selects for the things genuinely worth encouraging.
It's a tricky situation, and I'm not sure what the best way to handle it is. But neither blind, effusive praise nor cold, harsh rejection are the best ways to go, here. If you had to pick one over the other, blind effusive praise it is, but there's definitely a middle ground here, one that selects for the things genuinely worth encouraging.
Telling children the truth helps them learn to have genuinely good ideas. Lying to them to avoid hurting their feelings implies there is some reason they should feel bad or discouraged about making a mistake like this. There isn't.
However I think we should applaud the lad for taking such a keen interest in mathematics at such an age, and having a willingness to expand his mind by way of creativity.
Usefulness or not, he's showing the signs of a thinking man in the works.
Usefulness or not, he's showing the signs of a thinking man in the works.
Yes.
If I had an idea, and someone explained to my why it's no good, I'd be very pleased. I'd be glad they replied and told me something I didn't know. I'd consider it a reward; and a much more useful one than applause. I think that's the most sensible way to feel: applause is OK, but serious replies are even nicer.
If I had an idea, and someone explained to my why it's no good, I'd be very pleased. I'd be glad they replied and told me something I didn't know. I'd consider it a reward; and a much more useful one than applause. I think that's the most sensible way to feel: applause is OK, but serious replies are even nicer.
(kissing more of my karma away for saying true things)
That's textbook autistic thinking. Almost verbatim, that's the difference between autistic and non autistic responses to praise. You are completely justified in thinking that way about yourself (and I think the same thing).
But you also have to realize most people's brains aren't wired that way. Especially children who are also engaged in things like spontaneous sharing.
That's textbook autistic thinking. Almost verbatim, that's the difference between autistic and non autistic responses to praise. You are completely justified in thinking that way about yourself (and I think the same thing).
But you also have to realize most people's brains aren't wired that way. Especially children who are also engaged in things like spontaneous sharing.
Why is autism called a mental illness if rational thinking is a textbook example?
Anyhow, I agree that you should make personality-appropriate comments that the child will appreciate.
(I upvoted all your comments in this thread now. Please don't worry about karma.)
Anyhow, I agree that you should make personality-appropriate comments that the child will appreciate.
(I upvoted all your comments in this thread now. Please don't worry about karma.)
Because autism involves (most likely) a deficiency in the mirror neurons which do not allow the children to learn from mimicking the social interaction of others. It's theorized that sometimes these deficient mirror neurons get replaced by other skills and pre-sensory processing, like logic, music, perfect pitch, etc, in the same way that some blind people have phenomenal hearing.
Also it's debilitating for a lot of people, many of whom lack so many mirror neurons they never learn how to communicate.
Also it's debilitating for a lot of people, many of whom lack so many mirror neurons they never learn how to communicate.
Come on, "mirror neurons" are just bullshit.
As I understand it, "mirror neurons" are a silly idea. Researchers noticed that people, for example, running, and people observing running, have similar brain activity. Why might that be? Well, they say that certain neurons somehow mimic what one observes. They imply these neurons are somewhat autonomous.
But there's another rather obvious possibility: the person running, and the person watching running, were both thinking about running. Their brain activity was similar because they were thinking about the same thing.
But there's another rather obvious possibility: the person running, and the person watching running, were both thinking about running. Their brain activity was similar because they were thinking about the same thing.
You don't understand it at all. The idea of mirror neurons is well proven. The only thing left to understand is if the mirror neuron problems result from or cause the autistic spectrum.
It's not true that for two people thinking the same thing, their brain scan looks the same, so your intuition is flawed. They are sure mirror neurons exist, and they know where in the brain they are.
It's not true that for two people thinking the same thing, their brain scan looks the same, so your intuition is flawed. They are sure mirror neurons exist, and they know where in the brain they are.
I am sure they are not. We don't really know how the brain works yet. I am pretty sure the "mirror neurons" are not special neurons, but simply neurons like all the others.
This is a good example of failure of the threading model at YC. It's very hard to see, visually, what the parent is. It's just sort of this comment in the middle of nowhere.
Link to the best web-available paper with evidence that they exist, and some text ruling out alternative explanations, and and I will read it.
You don't want to do the study you would need to do to grasp the issue well enough to form a coherent judgement. Reading one paper won't even come close to cutting it.
I can give you a list of books on neurology and autism to read. But I don't want to hunt papers on the web, decide on the best ones, read them all and find one to recommend to you, sorry. I'd hunt down VS Ramachandrans recent work if you wanted to find one, but he is more of a theorist then the researcher who proves the theory, so I'm not sure if that's quite what you want.
I can give you a list of books on neurology and autism to read. But I don't want to hunt papers on the web, decide on the best ones, read them all and find one to recommend to you, sorry. I'd hunt down VS Ramachandrans recent work if you wanted to find one, but he is more of a theorist then the researcher who proves the theory, so I'm not sure if that's quite what you want.
But hey, at least he proved on a web forum how he's smarter than a 6-year-old!
You are very wrong about this xlnt. You should understand more about child development.
It's a useful number because it gets a kid playing with math. Encourage them to teach themselves more about it, to play with it, but, for Christ's sake, do not give the child a terse answer more appropriate for a college student then a damn 6 year old.
Your attitude is at the root of why the entire edifice of mathematics education to children is completely soul numbing.
It's a useful number because it gets a kid playing with math. Encourage them to teach themselves more about it, to play with it, but, for Christ's sake, do not give the child a terse answer more appropriate for a college student then a damn 6 year old.
Your attitude is at the root of why the entire edifice of mathematics education to children is completely soul numbing.
I wasn't speaking to a child. I spoke about the content of the issue. What form to present it in, and which content the child would be interested to hear, is not my affair; it depends on the details of their situation and personalities. I cannot hope to comment accurately about that. Nor can you.
In the future I would strongly encourage you to leave out remarks such as, "You should understand more about child development." I don't mind if you state that I'm wrong, for clarity, but you don't know anything about how many years I've spent learning about child development, or how much I know about it, so it's not wise to comment on that.
PS I upmodded you back to 1. I don't think you intended to be hostile.
In the future I would strongly encourage you to leave out remarks such as, "You should understand more about child development." I don't mind if you state that I'm wrong, for clarity, but you don't know anything about how many years I've spent learning about child development, or how much I know about it, so it's not wise to comment on that.
PS I upmodded you back to 1. I don't think you intended to be hostile.
Again, no offense, but the set of people who understand child development and the set of people who would say what you said do not intersect. So I can infer that you do not know child development.
There are two questions here: (a) what's the actual value of this idea, and (b) what's the right thing to say to a child who has come up with an idea like this, in order to give them the correct amount of encouragement without over-praising them?
As the cold-hearted over-educated curmudgeons of the internet, we're allowed to answer part (s) without worrying about part (b). The kid's dad has to worry about part (b) for himself, but I hope the kid's dad has enough perspective to realize the correct answer to part (a) is that it's worthless.
As the cold-hearted over-educated curmudgeons of the internet, we're allowed to answer part (s) without worrying about part (b). The kid's dad has to worry about part (b) for himself, but I hope the kid's dad has enough perspective to realize the correct answer to part (a) is that it's worthless.
I don't really think any reasonable reading suggests the kids dad was asking question a. Do you?
Sometimes unpopular ideas turn out to be true.
Maybe you should give him a relevant dictionary and have him teach himself that quadrupillion sounds a lot more like 4 million then googleplex+100 by finding the prefix he used.
People he will never meet will forever refer to that number as Quadrupillion. He's already changing the world in odd, creative ways.
See? http://quadrupillion.com
Keep up the good work!