Slashdot Mirror
Why Toddlers Don't Do What They're Told
Hugh Pickens writes "New cognitive research shows that 3-year-olds neither plan for the future nor live completely in the present, but instead call up the past as they need it. 'There is a lot of work in the field of cognitive development that focuses on how kids are basically little versions of adults trying to do the same things adults do, but they're just not as good at it yet. What we show here is they are doing something completely different,' says professor Yuko Munakata at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Munakata's team used a computer game and a setup that measures the diameter of the pupil of the eye to determine mental effort to study the cognitive abilities of 3-and-a-half-year-olds and 8-year-olds. The research concluded that while everything you tell toddlers seems to go in one ear and out the other, the study found that toddlers listen, but then store the information for later use. 'For example, let's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside,' says doctoral student Christopher Chatham. 'You might expect the child to plan for the future, think "OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm." But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it.'"
So children learn by DOING, I get it.
Man, I'm glad millions of dollars are going to these kinds of studies.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Hmm sounds like me. I also don't do what i am told and i don't plan for the future.
Us Marketers knew this shit a LONG time ago.
Maybe you should listen to us a little more you tech assholes.
Seriously, given how many times I've walked outside, discovered it was cold, then remembered where my jacket is, I don't see how that process is any different from the average person. I propose a new theory to explain why a toddler would run outside before getting their jacket, Toddlers don't have weather ESP.
As for the whole in one ear and out the other thing, that's not unique to toddlers by any means. Ask any parent of a teenager, or a kid between toddler and teenager, or the teacher of a lazy college student. Where did the idea of toddlers being the only humans like that come from?
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Good stuff. I think a lot of parental frustration comes from completely forgetting what it was like to be a kid. The more we learn of measurable differences in functioning between children and adults, the better. Ingrained beliefs can only get you so far.
it makes one ponder how one approach the development of AI's to.
sounds a bit like they are building up a bayesian database of conditions and actions, going more and more specific over time.
like say how cold at first will just be a generic sense of temperature thats uncomfortable (thanks to it driving the surface temperature of the outer skin below whats healthy for the cells that makes up the skin). then later one add specifics like snow on the ground, ice and other indicators. as more of these shows up, one get a stronger sense that its cold outside, and that again triggers conditioned reflexes like wearing thick clothing.
so, to turn this over to AI research, the approach may well be to start with a blank database and a collection of sensors and outputs. then one pile on a generic bayesian filter, and leave it running.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
You're pretty stupid. Science is methodological and precise to avoid relying on "common sense" because common sense often is not actually correct. Also, it's often easy for you to see ahead of time that this seemed obvious, but in fact was not. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection? Seems obvious to us now (although given the stupidity of your post I wouldn't doubt if you deny it!) but in fact took quite a long time for us to get a good theory of evolution down. Hell, it took a long time to get rid of phlogiston and the ether and "animal spirits." It took us an Einstein to get relativity!
This discovery has very applicable uses, particularly in the general processes of the cognitive processes of toddlers, brain development, and memory storage and retrieval.
Academics, practicing science, are more in the "real world" than you are, because they need rigor and experimentation. It seems anecdote and casual observation is good enough for you.
"...the study found that toddlers listen, but then store the information for later use."
Unless, of course, they grow up with incredible hemispheric laterality of the corpus callosum.
Nah...Bill Cosby had it right: "'I don't knoooow.' Brain damage."
Like writing to ROM in slow-motion, over weeks, months and years. Then they become a teenager and destroy its contents with _way_ too much pot.
That Neanderthal comparison continuation at the bottom of the article may not be accurate. For one, we don't know if they had language. Their voice box does not appear as developed as ours, but they may have used sign-language, which may be better for hunting than verbal. And they were not necessarily "more emotional". We just don't know.
Table-ized A.I.
I really wanted to link to The Onion's "Study Reveals: Babies Are Stupid," but this is a far more critical and analytic approach to problems than most people tend to use. Blindly following rules is a horrible way to learn about anything. The best learners, in my experience, take advice into consideration, then try to see if it's good advice, and discover why or why not. Applied to the example from the summary, the kid who thinks "is it really that cold outside? Yes it is, I'll go get my coat" is going to turn out a lot better than the kid who goes straight for the coat, especially at times when the authority figures are wrong.
So they don't believe what they are told until they verify it themselves? That would make them more intelligent than most adults. Children are being told lies all the time, I can't blame them for being skeptical.
I always think my 20 month old daughter will ask for a jacket if she really feels cold. Now to convince her mom or well-meaning friends and relatives :-)
Hao Wu is stupid? I don't think so. Engineers are scientists, of a sort. I've had engineers hand me blueprints, and in ten minutes I found problems that SHOULD have been obvious to a kid in junior high school. (Try this: dig a trench in soil, which is 48 inches wide at the bottom, and 36 inches wide at the top, and two feet deep, then put men to work in the trench. See how long the top remains 36 inches) There are any number of educated idiots in this world who should have been drowned when they were still pups. Anecdote and casual observation accumulated over time equate to empirical evidence. Any "scientist" who dismisses empirical evidence is no scientist at all. The moment his experiments run contrary to empirical evidence, he had BETTER reexamine everything he has done beginning with the concepts and assumptions behind the experiment. What is stupid is, assuming that another man is stupid because you can't comprehend his statements.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
When future parents are awaiting their first child, I hope they spend some time to learn how to handle small children. I don't expect them to study and evaluate original research papers, but original research papers sooner or later (usually: later) make it into what we call the "common sense". Therefore, scientific research may indeed help.
Additionally (I didn't go into the researcher's biographies), maybe they got the idea for their project while observing their own kids.
Disclaimer: I am a neuroscientist and I indeed believe that lots of behavioral and, in fact, neurological research is utter rubbish, but this belief doesn't invalidate sound studies.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Absolutely not! If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round, but if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough to discover that.
You're no scientist and have no idea what scientists actually do.
HAND.
And yet, anecdotal evidence in itself isn't very meaningful either. It's good to affirm what you experience to be true scientifically. It's also good to be open to the possibility that it's wrong, or we might publically crucify the next person who says the world is round, (Because, you know, that never happened) burn "witches" at the stake, or go on living superstitious lives where we are scared shitless because a black cat walked our path.
My point is anecdotal evidence isn't the be all, end all. It's not even sound.
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
Maybe if doctors would have more kids instead of studying them in laboratories, then they would "discover" these insights immediately.
And maybe they would fall prey to the same misconceptions most parents do.
OTOH, have you at least considered the possibility that their own children provided the inspiration for the research?
Ignore this signature. By order.
Disclaimer: I am a neuroscientist and I indeed believe that lots of behavioral and, in fact, neurological research is utter rubbish, but this belief doesn't invalidate sound studies.
Out of curiosity, can you elaborate?
I don't know what cognitive deficits you suffer from, but I didn't even talk about parents. I was talking about a general understanding of the human brain and how it develops.
I suppose you're the type that denies global warming is at all occurring because "it shore feels cold here, Jethro!"
What is stupid is, assuming that another man is stupid because you can't comprehend his statements.
The great laughable irony here is that your post is a total non-sequitur. You apparently didn't even understand what Hao Wu was saying; it had nothing to do with incompetent people (which no doubt exist, I would however point to both you and Hao Wu as examples) but whether the research was useless, pointing out the "obvious." Hilariously you didn't comprehend his or my statements. And by your own logic, that is stupid.
From your bio:
I currently enjoy: studying, music, computers, and women. For studying, I am in to biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. I see those fields as one continuum, not seperate areas of study. For music, I like Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, and a little Eminem. For computers, I prefer Macs for my own use, but if I have to help around the lab I can do with other platforms also. With women, I like to date any girls except asian girls. I am through dating them since a slut I was dating lied to me. Asian girls only like you for power and money. They only want to party and have fun while you work hard on weekends and make appointments while they sleep around. Don't talk to me on this board if you are an asian girl. I don't care what you have to say. I need to move on with new women. Blonds find me cute and very attractive, and they like me for my head not my wallet (like you asian girls). I don't know any black girls at the moment.
That sums it up.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Maybe so, but weak empirical evidence. Even if you're completely accurate in describing what you see, and that assumption is often a stretch, your conditions are likely not controlled enough to isolate anything in particular--and it may conflict with what somebody ELSE sees, which opens a completely different can of worms.
It sounds like in your line of work, simply knowing that the blueprint you got handed won't work in the real world is enough. That's perfectly fine; everybody is concerned with different particulars depending on their own perspective. What you have is a conclusion: "No, you're an idiot. This is faulty." From your perspective that's important. From a scientist (or engineer's), it's a starting point: "Why is this faulty? What can we learn from it? How can we avoid the same mistake later?" Neither of you are wrong, neither of you are wasting your time, but at the same time if you two swapped positions everything would likely go to hell pretty quick.
Anecdote and casual observation are great things to direct us on what we need to study rigorously; they're not a study in themselves.
True, but that's not what this is. Hao Wu basically said (paraphrasing) "parents have known this for ages, if scientists could get any they would have known too!"
Aside from being a bit of a douchebag, his statement isn't particularly rigorous. Parents have known WHAT for ages? That children don't listen? That little kids have particular trouble listening? That's spectacular, and it's a good jumping-off point for exactly the kind of study that was done -- but it's not particularly meaningful in itself. I noticed the sky looks blue, too; that's meaningless as well. Somebody coming along and telling me about white light and wavelengths and giving me the reason WHY it's blue can be important. It chains a statement like "the sky is blue" into any number of potential discussions ranging from anatomy to physics to meteorology.
Knowing that little kids have trouble listening is interesting, and frankly even people without kids have observed that (making the little pot-shot comment about scientists not having kids distasteful,) but what's more interesting is to know WHY--the study seems to be pushing the idea that it's literally a functional difference in their brain. That's cool. Can we do anything about it? That might be useful. Why does it happen and what changes as they age that makes it stop? That might be useful too, in any number of applications and particularly for people who have any sort of learning disorders that we might find have similar physical causes and might respond to similar treatments. Is this just a lack of life experiences, or are we literally altering the way the brain works as we get older?
What your parent poster said was correct: Science is necessary to validate our observations because so many things we have "known" to be true have turned out to be false. I'm not big on name calling, and wouldn't have taken that tact myself, but saying that science wastes its time by studying things we "know" does seem illogical at best.
"You're pretty stupid. Science is methodological and precise to avoid relying on "common sense" because common sense often is not actually correct."
Not that I don't agree, but lets flesh figure out wwhy this cliche statement holds a grain of truth in the first place.
Common sense may not always be correct, but lets be sensible here - not hitting someone is common sense and you don't need science to tell you that. Now someone might say "well ok, common sense is sometimes correct", the problem is not with "common sense" the problem is with the imprecision of language and the context in which the term "common sense" is dropped in conversation in place of specific arguments or observations that are articulated well and to the point which are completely testable and verifiable,
The problem is that the term common sense is always used within a context that is never specifically defined point by point, if it was then I'm sure science would back up a lot of 'common sense' (which is just shorthand often times for valid evidence and observations of other people through their lives experiences)
Not to worry. He may not care what Asian girls have to say, but what I have to say is this: He will have difficulties of any girl talking to him on this board, for this is /., after all.
I suppose you've never seen any evidence of a woman's pupils and/or vagina dilating then.
signature is pants
"I currently enjoy: studying, music, computers, and women. For studying, I am in to biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. I see those fields as one continuum, not seperate areas of study. For music, I like Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, and a little Eminem. For computers, I prefer Macs for my own use, but if I have to help around the lab I can do with other platforms also. With women, I like to date any girls except asian girls. I am through dating them since a slut I was dating lied to me. Asian girls only like you for power and money. They only want to party and have fun while you work hard on weekends and make appointments while they sleep around. Don't talk to me on this board if you are an asian girl. I don't care what you have to say. I need to move on with new women. Blonds find me cute and very attractive, and they like me for my head not my wallet (like you asian girls). I don't know any black girls at the moment."
"That sums it up."
Wow, he really didn't leave you anything to tear down, did he? I can't tell if his bio is serious, or if he really is that boneheaded.
Going back through his recent comments reveals he is, in fact, that boneheaded. Quoth he:
Basing all of your wealth on bananas might sound silly, but there are doubtlessly people who have made millions doing just that. Fruit, gold, and "trust" - they are all exactly the same in economic terms.
I want my airbags tested by an enthusiastic teenager, not some beaten down engineer with years of backbreaking experience. All they need is the desire to succeed, in order to do bridge building or aeronautical design. Surgery too.
Well, for the record, I'd like him to test the airbags that were tested by the enthusiastic teenagers insteda of the beaten-down engineers.
When future parents are awaiting their first child, I hope they spend some time to learn how to handle small children.
They can study it all they want, memorizing countless tomes of wisdom on parenting, and it still won't adequately prepare them for parenting. Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be. This introduces a bit of a problem, as you probably interpret this idea to mean that no parent on this planet knows what they're doing until they learn from mistakes made along the way.
On that, you'd be absolutely right.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
No. ;)
Concerning behavioral research (my career has nothing particular to do with this, I'm a molecular biologist concerned with early brain development), there are repeatedly studies presented here on /. with crappy conclusions (and good commentaries from the /. crowd).
And I think the current study is indeed insightful, because I always become desperate when confronted with small children that simply don't listen to my arguments. Maybe I can use a different approach when handling kids in the future. (Yes, you guessed it, I'm the child-less sort of /.ter I have already described. ;))
Concerning neurological research, I won't elaborate in detail. Not that my boss would ever read /., but I'd rather stay on the safe and AC side. It works like this:
Some time later:
No, while this narrative is somewhat comprehensive and prepared for easy digestion by the reader, this is not made up. Actually, the boss' comments are somewhat more harsh at times.
And our lab is fairly well known in the research area in question, our boss has some good friends in competing labs, and since many results are not reproducible, I believe that many of the competing labs have similar standards of scientific methodology.
What could I do about this? I have found my niche where I think I can work somewhat untainted by the boss; and in some time I will leave. I know the /. crowd will shout and throw stones and evil words on me, but to bring up proven evidence that our lab's research is not as scientific as it seems at first glance, and, furthermore, to make this a public scandal, needs you to be very, very strong and committed. And since we are all small ones, those who'll make it public will lose their jobs and find no other one, afterwards. That's like it is, face it.
No more comments from my side.
3 year olds work on Wall Street?
Now I understand Congress...no wait. They get outside, start freezing, run inside and burn down the house.
If I got a penny for every time I've had to tell someone 'I told you we were probably going to get this problem, why didn't you bring your . No, I won't lend you mine, I need it myself.' I'd be a millionaire. You can say that they can plan ahead, but just don't do it, but I really don't find that very believable at this point. Perhaps they can also speak Latin, but just choose not to do it.
Very true.
I like the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child", even though it really isn't practical these days. The good part of that idea is that half the village has probably already had kids and learned a few things along the way, and can possibly offer you some advice should you choose to listen. That's the other part of the problem - parents start out with a firm idea of how it's going to be, and won't listen to reason even when it's not working (speaking from experience :)
Also, given the smaller families these days and the lesser contact with close family once you 'leave the nest', the first real exposure a lot of couples have to a new baby is when it pops out of one of them. It's one hell of a steep learning curve.
This is pretty obvious really. What irritates me is parents who don't get it. If you accept that a 3 year old child will do something before considering the consequences then allowing a kid to run in the street, or trusting it not to touch the red hot stove is really idiotic.
I'm always angered when I see young mothers in the street letting their toddlers get 20 or 30 yards ahead or behind with no thought for the consequences. If that kid decides to run in the road, there is no way to get there in time. I've almost run over a kid like that - ran straight out from behind a parked car. Fortunately for all concerned I had already seen the kid as it disappeared behind the car. The father gave me a filthy look as I slammed the brakes on, and I was really tempted to get out and hammer him. Why should I suffer the (undeserved) guilt of killing a kid if the father was to blame. Apparently I'm supposed to care more about the kid than the parents do.
BTW, it was dark, the parked car was parked illegally, and I was driving about 20mph in a 30 mph limit. The road was 2 lanes and one way. If the kid had continued running after I stopped it would have been caught by the guy on my left passing me at higher speed.
When I was a kid my parents kept me on reins so I was never more than 2 feet and a tug away. Parents these days seem to think that is treating your kids like a dog. Stupid people. You cannot guarantee your kids safety by training when they are too young to consider their actions. No matter how bright they are.
There is no fail safe with toddlers, you have to make sure there is no fail at all (as far as possible). It is not a matter of putting the big knife on a higher shelf, it is a matter of locking the big knife away. Don't hide the gun in a shoebox, lock the gun away. Etc.
I remember when I was younger and my wife and I were first planning to have kids; we went to a parenting course and the guy giving the course (a pastor from some church or something) was explaining why corporal punishment was bad and tantamount to assaulting one's own kids.
He said that toddlers will always be toddlers; they will always do things that they have been warned against, and perhaps been punished for before, over and over again. The reason, he said, was because toddlers only remember the consequences of their actions after the action. "They don't look ahead at the consequences of the action that they might be about to commit, but rather look back after the action and realise what the likely consequence is going to be."
That was about 9 years ago!
regardless of how intelligence you might be.
Or how grammatical correctness you are...
Yeah, I noticed it just after I whacked submit :).
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Slope.
According to Dana Carvey
I would tone down the hateful bigotry in your posts...understanding and tolerance are the keys to success in today's world.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
uh, except the topic at hand is young kids. Young kids don't have common sense. Adults don't remember being kids... so uh, hence there is no common sense here to start a theory on.
Learning to parent is pretty much like learning anything else. It's helpful to combine book learning with apprentice-type experience (read: be around babies a lot a pay attention to what works and what does't) then; and then when you are doing it 'for real', stay open intellectually and emotionally and to the unique situation in front of you, draw as best as to can on the book- and apprentice-style learning, and be ready to change your theories, try new things and seek advice as often as possible.
So, I agree that many problems come from a lack of experience or lack of knowledge before parenting one's own children and many more come from a closed-minded approach after (thinking one's kid will be just like kids in the textbook, just like other kids, just like you, just like your ideal kid should be, etc ajd ignoring the actual kid in front of you).
... that the largest financial institutions in the U.S. were actually run by 3 year-olds.
My three year old has a piggy bank (actually it is Thomas the Tank Engine, not a pig) with about $55 in it.
I can't think of one big name financial CEO who managed to make even half that much profit.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Researchers have found that there is money available for farting around if they justify it in a plausible way.
As any parent will tell you, the "terrible twos" are a myth. It's the three-year-olds that have the potent combination of independent ability and lack of responsibility.
I think they should name this study in honor of Bill Cosby's "I dun-no!" sketches.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Engineers are scientists, of a sort.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
You just said no, then admitted they're applied scientists, and somehow that got you modded up.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Kids haven't had their souls crushed sufficiently by the age of three. Give it some time.
I read TFA, and it sounds to me like this thing lacked a control group. They included the eight year-olds, but they don't count because this task was not new to them. Match a two-symbol pattern? Child's play (ha ha). Try something a little harder.
I've done enough OJT of adults to believe that everybody, pretty much regardless of age, fails to anticipate the pattern until the whole thing has played out when they're doing something new and challenging. I think it's very common for people not to consider the possibility that they're seeing a train until they see the caboose -- then they try to remember if they saw an engine and some boxcars first. (This is a metaphor -- I know nobody's this stupid.)
I don't think this study proves anything.
You do this because you a stupid. Adults CAN plan ahead and most sensible people do. We put our jacket on before going outside if we expect the weather to be cold. We prepare. A toddler, this study seems to claim, can't do that even if it wanted to.
Remember that the toldler has been TOLD it is cold outside and still doesn't plan ahead. That is not what sensible adults do. Maybe you ain't sensible and have the intelligence of a toddler but that is a whole other problem.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I like the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child".
You, and far too many people share this horrible ideal. This is precisely why laws are in place to make it harder and harder for a couple to parent.
Applied science? You must mean engineering. If we say that a scientist attempts to discover the rules by which the natural world operates via observation and reason, then applied science isn't science, because its aim is not to understand the natural world.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Absolutely not! If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round, but if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough to discover that.
You're no scientist and have no idea what scientists actually do.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
The correct answer here is that some engineers are scientists and some aren't. Among those engineers who are scientists, there are basic scientists, whose aim it is to understand the principles of engineering, and applied scientists, whose aim it is to understand how our knowlege of engineering interacts with real world problems.
That's the cartoon version, of course, but it should clear up some unnecessary confusion.
When future parents are awaiting their first child, I hope they spend some time to learn how to handle small children.
They can study it all they want, memorizing countless tomes of wisdom on parenting, and it still won't adequately prepare them for parenting. Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be. This introduces a bit of a problem, as you probably interpret this idea to mean that no parent on this planet knows what they're doing until they learn from mistakes made along the way. On that, you'd be absolutely right.
And they will never again say:
"My child will never do that..."
Crow, it tastes so good...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Spoken as an only child and a parent. :)
Concerning behavioral research (my career has nothing particular to do with this, I'm a molecular biologist concerned with early brain development), there are repeatedly studies presented here on /. with crappy conclusions (and good commentaries from the /. crowd).
When you say "crappy conclusions," do you mean conclusions that are poorly supported by the evidence, or conclusions that are well supported by the evidence but not that interesting, or what?
I've rarely seen much in the way of good commentaries on science from the crowd here. Sometimes a few people who actually know the area in question will post some insightful comments. But the rest generally respond to the popular report that's been posted, which almost invariably misses the point of the research. I'd be curious to hear what most Slashdotters think the take-home message was meant to be from the study under discussion here.
As a behavioral researcher, I certainly sympathize with your contempt for the field. But at the same time, I think there are good reasons to ask scientific questions that involve behavior (even more so neurology). The fact that some people do it poorly doesn't change that, nor does the fact that some people prefer an extreme reductionist approach.
"It takes a village to raise a child" was intended for fat American kids, where it takes an entire village to lift the buggers out of their stroller.
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
Well they are in a way. A long time ago, scientists used to be something like philosophers in that they were simply trying to figure things out and discover the order behind things. I'm sure some scientists are still doing that, but I suspect that many scientists today have jobs where they take their grounding for granted and are just trying to figure out how to accomplish some goal.
Like they're trying to find a cure for cancer, trying to figure out how to make faster computers, or trying to understand how genetics can be used to cure diseases. Even if they're not engaged in what you would normally called "applied science", it's still sort of an exercise in engineering. Theoretical physicists are trying to generate ever smaller particles and then doing the math to figure out how those particles fit into a particular model. Even generating a TOE is approached as sort of a trial-and-error engineering effort.
What I find irritating and frustrating is that this principle of doing studies to find the results that a boss wants to find can be applied all across the scientific community (e.g. ignoring the sun's activity direct connection to the earth's changes in temp...which is why even though there have been increased CO2 emissions since 2001 the earth's temps have been even or gone down slightly).
But I digress...the point is that you are right and I'll bet you that the scientists that did this study aren't stay at home parents full time to be able to observe what ACTUALLY happens with kids while growing up. Kids act differently for researchers than for their parents. Shocking, I know, but it's true. So how can these results be accurate?
And to write that new studies are trying to show that children are "basically little versions of adults trying to do the same things adults do, but they're just not as good at it yet." is INSANE! They do copy adults...sometimes. They do try to do as Mom, Dad, and siblings do...sometimes. But, they are not little versions of adults that are just crappy at being people. This theory was held in the Dark Ages (need I say more) and was completely debunked in the 1970's.
For the record, I could have told them that toddlers learn best by doing and experiencing, but I would also advise that there are proven parental techniques that keep children from "experiencing" the hot stove while it's turned on. It's called, "Paying Attention to Your Child." This can be applied to many a situation.
It is certainly possible to learn parenting from others with experience, as a new parent I've gotten shedloads of really bad advice from friends and family. It doesn't help that fourteen is considered a good age to have a child around here (Albuquerque, New Mexico).
This idea that the village (or other group) should collectively have a say in how I raise my daughter is crap. They can HELP by providing a safe environment now and role models later, but I rely much more on my pediatrician and mother for sound advice. My mom raised someone a lot like my kid (me), so she should know!
...than the parents. See: Reincarnation, past life evidence. Take the RED pill.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
the UK goernment likes to trot that line out every time that they come up with a new proposal for interfering in how parents bring up their children. Let's not give it more validity
Uhm, let me guess: you're the Parent.
amiright amiright?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Just checking. If not, time to reformat. If so, no one talks about this?
I got this URL for the article:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090324-toddlers-listen.html
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
As their poster says "If you cannot reach out and grab your child they are too far away".
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Hey, you need to get off your high horse of scientific methodological correctness and accept all sorts of evidence you have. Some complex domains (e.g., biomedical, clinical medicine, social sciences, cognitive, etc.) are still short of general theories and fundamental physical laws of the same nature as celestial mechanics so we have to make do with any kind of evidence. Add to this the fact that you have to make a decision quickly, I mean right now, and you will see how much time you have left to study the problem using your absolutely correct methodological approach (if there were such a thing).
You seem to be a strong believer in earth-around-sun and I do to but in doing so we have chosen "to believe" (observe the choice of word) as we, as individuals, have little direct evidence of this earth-around-sun reality. What we get to see every day (the mountain of evidence) is misleading but may be good enough to estimate quickly what time of day it is.
So why do we choose to "believe" and commit ourselves to the earth-around-sun theory and to the studies and researchers behind it? Most likely because, we have a "gut feeling" that the theory is more likely to be correct. Point is, we do not have the time to verify the theory ourselves or the means to fly around the solar system and make of movie of to document what is really happening. If we were to go "absolutely correctly" about it we would have to verify each theories we use ourselves. Are you off your high horse yet?
Science evolves and theories need to be falsifiable. So we make do with what we have today. Who is to say that in a yet undiscovered set of additional spatial dimensions the sun is not actually revolving around the earth in some way.
You off the horse yet?
Let's put the research in the context of other cognitive findings. Here's what I would speculate.
1) Abstracting the experience: A three year old's brain is learning to abstract elements of the experience.
2) Associative modeling: It then uses that associative "this is like / not-like" comparison of a new situation to the stored model.
3) Time: The kid's sense of present-versus-future is still developing; this goes back to babies enjoying presence-absence a.k.a. peek-a-boo play.
4) Linear sense of time - I'm sure you know adults who can't order things into a linear time sequence. Planning is a learned, not an innate, ability that is best learned before the teen years.
5) Models - How well a kid uses models from the prefrontal cortex is also critical to that kid's control of impulsivity. Thoughtful kids may seem to be hesitant with new situations, and probably easily overwhelmed (overstimulated)with sensory input, compared to the kids we call impulsive (or worse).
6) Decisions: The kid's ability to make logical (causal) predictions (decisions) depends on its yet developing sophistication to decide if the stored model fits the situation.
7) Creativity: The child's mind wants to explore and learn - i.e., test its models, change the models, create new models, or go out into the cold without that prescribed coat.
8) Our role: We should encourage play and provide an emotionally safe environment for the experimentation - i.e., the child's intellect to develop.
9) Under the hood: The brain's prefrontal cortex abstracts experiences and constructs a logical model: If this, then this. Alternatively, the amygdala might create an emotional model - especially from traumatic situations - for a more visceral or instantaneous reaction.
10) "Intuition" is the sophisticated ability to make a decision by quickly retrieving the best-fit model for that situation; BTW, consider how your sensibility might change if the English language did not have a future verb tense: then, consider that the Japanese language doesn't!
It's fun keeping tabs on these studies and they've been useful to understanding adult decision making processes (see www.matrixed.org ).
I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom.
This is just not a very useful advice.
I would take that 3 year old and put that coat on him without talking that much, then outside, I would tell him to get the coat off. In 10 minutes he'll be asking for the coat back and next time I probably wouldn't have to say much. However if this didn't work I would explain the situation in words a couple of times before turning to conditional education by using Pavlov's methods.
You can't handle the truth.
Maybe the US educational system can learn from this. That is, maybe have kids learn through inquiry-based approaches instead of dictating "theory" to them.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
I write user manuals for network equipment, and IT guys are just like toddlers. They slap in a piece of equipment, do the usual things to it, and only if it doesn't work do they engage their memories about what they've been told about THIS box, as opposed to some internalized archetypal box. That's why it's so important to make interfaces work the way people expect them to, with your special secret sauce elsewhere. Car makers figured this out ages ago. All cars have a steering wheel instead of joystick or a rudder or whatever, because people are going to get in and go before they stop to figure out the controls.
Let's put the research in the context of other cognitive findings. Here's what I would speculate.
1) Abstracting the experience: A three year old's brain is learning to abstract elements of the experience.
2) Associative modeling: It then uses that associative "this is like / not-like" comparison of a new situation to the stored model.
3) Time: The kid's sense of present-versus-future is still developing; this goes back to babies enjoying presence-absence a.k.a. peek-a-boo play.
4) Linear sense of time - I'm sure you know adults who can't order things into a linear time sequence. Planning is a learned, not an innate, ability that is best learned before the teen years.
5) Models - How well a kid uses models from the prefrontal cortex is also critical to that kid's control of impulsivity. Thoughtful kids may seem to be hesitant with new situations, and probably easily overwhelmed (overstimulated)with sensory input, compared to the kids we call impulsive (or worse).
6) Decisions: The kid's ability to make logical (causal) predictions (decisions) depends on its yet developing sophistication to decide if the stored model fits the situation.
7) Creativity: The child's mind wants to explore and learn - i.e., test its models, change the models, create new models, or go out into the cold without that prescribed coat.
8) Our role: We should encourage play and provide an emotionally safe environment for the experimentation - i.e., the child's intellect to develop.
9) Under the hood: The brain's prefrontal cortex abstracts experiences and constructs a logical model: If this, then this. Alternatively, the amygdala might create an emotional model - especially from traumatic situations - for a more visceral or instantaneous reaction.
10) "Intuition" is the sophisticated ability to make a decision by quickly retrieving the best-fit model for that situation; BTW, consider how your sensibility might change if the English language did not have a future verb tense: then, consider that the Japanese language doesn't!
I've found it fun and useful (www.matrixed.org) to track these studies on cognitive development.
From the article:
What would be more effective would be to somehow try to trigger this reactive function. So don't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face.
The wonderful thing is that this knowledge is already being put into widespread practice today. After "fixing deficient children" and having them score equally to "normal" children on exams, Dr. Montessori was given an opportunity to open a school in a ghetto in Rome. The law at the time would not allow her to work with Elementary aged children because she was not a certified teacher, so she was initially forced to work with children between 3 - 7 yrs. It was there that she came to the same conclusion (and others) about developmental psychology.
The school evolved into an environment where the children of the younger plane (3-6) could use autodidactic materials in order to "trigger this reactive function" and "highlight the conflicts that they were going to face". Even the teachers in the school were instructed on how to become part of this environment, while guiding the children to new challenges. This is in stark contrast to the "teacher-centric" environments that we still have today, in which the teacher tries to control the activities through adult reasoning and psychology.
Towards the end of her life, after working with all ages, she considered that developmental psychology could be looked on as 4 distinct age groups, she called "plains of development": (0 - 6), (6 - 12), (12 - 18), (18 - 24). Each has a number of characteristics and tendencies that strengthen or become marginalized depending on their natural development. These tendencies are strongest in the middle (which is why Dr. Munakata's research worked so well), and blend in between.
Dr. Montessori gave up her career as a doctor to create materials, open schools, train teachers, and put her findings into useful practice. I'd recommend anyone with children to look into it further. As with Dr. Munakata's research, there's much that can be done in both home and school. There's a fairly good, quick overview from Milwaukee Public schools where many public schools were converted into Montessori schools. Most Montessori schools you'll find are private.
But be warned, the name "Montessori" is not copyrighted, and many use it to make money. I'd suggest starting with schools associated with AMI (Association Montessori Internationale [this is the association Dr. Montessori created herself]), NAMTA (North American Montessori Teacher's Association), or AMS (American Montessori Society), as they seem to be the more reputable organizations.
The Wikipedia article mainly focuses on (3-6) education, and other aspects are sparse. One book that attempts to explain the approach through modern psychological findings is: "Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius"
But probably the best thing to do, after a bit of web research, would probably be to visit a school run by AMI or AMS trained teachers and see for yourself.
What a bunch of idiots. Three year olds don't have strong cognitive responses to language. Don't you remember being three? I remember being in the womb (especially when the water broke, hard to forget that one). Talk about a different mode of thought. As long as people think that the way they think is the only way to think, they'll never really figure anything out, beyond social rote.
Very well put... if I had mod points, I'd... no, wait, I've responded to another post on this topic already.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yeah pffft I hate it when scientists do research only to find out what they expected. They should only do research that would yield unexpected results.
You just got troll'd!
This is common with adults too. Someone mentions something. You don't think it's important or relevant. Then later you think (and perhaps admit) that the one making the comment was right.
You see, people need to have some sort of imprint of something being relevant in a certain situation (because people don't think about everything, so they will skip your information at first unless it's in a philosophical type conversation where people are forced to, and/or want to understand/use information given). However, they usually will have made a mental not of what you said and then apply it later.
Because of this, sometimes giving advice can be frustrating: You give advice. Other person doesn't do it. Then a few months later he comes with an 'idea of his own' that is actually the idea you presented to him/her.
It's in more complex situations this delayed application of information happens in adult life, but it's pretty obvious it happens.
They can study it all they want, memorizing countless tomes of wisdom on parenting, and it still won't adequately prepare them for parenting. Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be. This introduces a bit of a problem, as you probably interpret this idea to mean that no parent on this planet knows what they're doing until they learn from mistakes made along the way.
Sounds a lot like preparing soldiers for combat....and probably just as dangerous to one's health and sanity.
Of course I meant conclusions that are poorly supported by the evidence. Conclusions that are not that interesting for me are simply not interesting for me, I do not use strong language to disapprove of them. (In this /. topic, there have been some comments of that kind: "I knew this anyway, why spend money on this research?" "Why do they not tackle The Real Problems(TM) instead?" Why are some comments so blatantly ignorant?)
Of course most comments are not that insightful (most are funny or crap or righteously false), but it are the few really great comments that get my attention. When learning something new, I usually focus on this great new insight, not on the crap surrounding it. ;)
I never denied this, I'm sorry if my comment was worded in an ambiguous way that allowed the suggestion of disapproval of your research area. In fact, I find behavioral research fascinating--and personal friendship with several psychologists lets me regularly discuss some studies or problems of that field. But I'm simply not very much into behavior. I have more than enough molecular biology papers on my desk(top) to read. ;)
No, they're not. They "merely" apply science to specific well-known problems.
I take offense to that. Although a lot of engineering involves solving well-known problems, there's a good deal of "never-before-done, at the conceptual stage, we're not sure if it's even possible" problems. Yes, we still use well known physics in the design process, but calling us "not scientists" is a little bit like saying modern mathematicians are not mathematicians because all they're doing is applying well-known math to solve their new problems.
Good engineers apply the scientific method in their design process. When creating something nobody has done before, they examine previous work, they construct a "hypothesis" of how to best solve the problem, they perform tests and simulations to make sure their assumptions are correct, and then they analyze the data, draw a conclusion (create a plan), and build the thing.
if we went by your standard of evidence it's doubtful that our collective scientific knowledge would actually have gotten far enough
I agree with you in principle. You can't take anything for granted, common sense is often wrong. And that applies in engineering a LOT.
If we went by your standard of evidence, we would consider there to be a mountain of evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nowadays it's easy to see that it's the other way round
However, you picked the worst example ever to make your point, because you just used a "common-sense, everyone thinks this is right, but technically it's not" example. It's not necessarily "wrong" to say the Sun goes around the Earth. It's inconvenient for calculations because the center of mass of the earth-sun system lies inside the Sun. It doesn't mean that you can't come up with an elaborate mathematical model with the Earth as the reference center of the solar system (and it has been done), it just means that you'll be doing too much damn work.
There's no absolute reference points in the universe. Picking the Sun as the center of the solar system is the equivalent of using the cylindrical coordinate system instead of the cartesian one for problems that make sense. Things get a whole lot easier, and the math is way simpler and more elegant.
Lol!
"What did I just say?"
"You said.. for to not for to drink the drink."
"Well, why did you do it???"
"I dun-no."
"Well, that's BRAIN DAMAGE!"
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
And I think the current study is indeed insightful, because I always become desperate when confronted with small children that simply don't listen to my arguments. Maybe I can use a different approach when handling kids in the future.
Here's a hint: don't make arguments, ask questions that lead the child to your point of view.
Children are (rightly so) a very curious bunch. They love questions; they love asking them and they usually enjoy being asked. I've had kids stop dead right in the middle of temper tantrums when posed with a sufficiently interesting question. You can just about see the gears turning in their heads.
When I want a kid to do something, I ask him a series of simple questions that he can answer with a little thinking, with each question bringing him closer to the realization I want him to have. Near the end, the connection is made and the child usually acts on his own volition. Sometimes a little amiable suggestion is also required.
This method requires a lot of patience, and it's not always possible or prudent for parents tasked with the 24/7 job of raising kids and who often find themselves at wit's end - but for childless people who only have to interact with children occasionally, it works like a charm.
With older (school-age) children, try explaining to them how other people feel about their actions, about the things they could do to make other people more amicable to their interests (and therefore get what they want). Kids really don't think about others - that's something that comes with teenagers (for some, later; for others, never) - so explaining to them how their actions could be tempered in order to ensure more smooth relations with others will often work (unless the kid is a stupid spoiled brat).
I've used that method to instruct kids on why their parents are angry with them, and what they could do to ameliorate that, or how what they are about to do (or trying to do) may end up with their parents getting angry with them. No child wants his parents pissed at him - it's pretty much the #1 aversion. You'd be surprised at how often the child just doesn't realize/think about these things, and when given reasonable advice, chooses to act in a reasonable manner.
How many kids did the family have? The dirty look you got might be the disappointment of not being relieved of one.
Not only don't toddlers have adult brains, they don't have brains at all. Speaking as the father of three, I can assure you that toddlers' heads are filled with bugs and dirt. Every time a bug digs another tunnel in the dirt, the kid runs off to do something new.
Don't ask what teenagers' skulls are filled with...
Interesting. So is human behavior different than human nature? And is human behavior influenced by the global environment of a century of wartime? Could all studies on human behavior in the past hundred years be wrong because of not accommodating for broadcast images of war?
How can we really think we know anything about human nature?
Neutiquam erro
Makes perfect sense to me, actually. The frontal lobes (the part of your brain that lets you effectively plan in the present and the future, among many other things) are basically the last part of a human's brain to develop. Sure they might be all there, but they're not really well-connected enough until puberty hits and those neurons mylinate.
A toddler, doesn't even have all of the equipment in place yet let alone have it hooked up. So, they do about the only thing their brain can handle -- file it away immediately. Then, something will trigger that memory, and it kicks in.
Once the higher cognitive functions develop further, this happens less and less as the brain gradually ramps up its functioning as new connections are made. And that's why children get smarter as they get older.
lol, no you're not right, but good try ;p Take the RED pill.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
It won't work -- transparently trying to make religious conservatives look idiotic -- people here are too smart for that.
You need to be a bit more subtle instead of being an outright ridiculous parody.
This morning I had my son (4.5y) asking me to get him outside to ride his bicycle.
So I've asked him in turn to plan the whole thing: getting dressed, going to the place where the bicycle is stored, getting the key to open the door etc.
It was hard for him but he managed to have an "executive" plot.
So I think I'll do that little exercise again.
As a side note: would be interesting to conduct similar study on a representative population of executive officers and financial experts.
Hint for parents: to *always* explain why you want your kid to do such or such thing is a wrong path, they must know that there are circumstances (until certain age) that questioning parental authority is not allowed (and *that* could be explained: you are totally accountable on what they do and what happens to them).
Pirsig disagrees with you.
The logical statements entered into the notebook are broken down into six categories: (1) statement of the problem, (2) hypotheses as to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the experiments, (5) observed results of the experiments, and (6) conclusions from the results of the experiments. This is not different from the formal arrangement of many college and high-school lab. notebooks, but the purpose here is no longer just busywork. The purpose now is precise guidance of thoughts that will fail if they are not accurate.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely. "
"A motorcycle mechanic, on the other hand, who honks the horn to see if the battery works is informally conducting a true scientific experiment. He is testing a hypothesis by putting a question to nature. The TV scientist who mutters sadly "The experiment is a failure, we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for" is suffering mainly from a bad scriptwriter. An experiment never fails solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails to adequately test the hypothesis in question; when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or the other."
The most effective kind of education is that
a child should play amongst lovely things. (Plato)
Human beings are the most imitative of all animals. This is especially true of
the child before the change of teeth. Everything is imitated during this time,
and as whatever enters the child through its senses as light and sound works
formatively on the organs, it is of utmost importance that what surrounds the
child should act beneficially.
At this age nothing is achieved by admonition; commands and prohibitions have
no effect whatever. But of greatest significance is the EXMAPLE. What the
child sees, what happens around him, he feels must be imitated. For instance:
the parents of a well-behaved child were astonished to discover that he had
taken money from a cashbox; greatly distrubed, they thought the child had
inclinations to steal. Questioning brought to light that the child had simply
imitated what he had seen his parents do everyday.
It is important that the examples the child sees and imitates are of a kind
that awaken inner forces. Exhortations have no effect, but the way a person
behaves in the child's presence matters greatly. It is far more important to
refrain from doing what the child is not permitted to do than to fobid the
child to imitate it.
(Rudolf Steiner, Lecture VI, Cologne, December 1, 1906, "Education...", p.96)
I have another study, funded by me and demonstrated by my 2-year-old daughter. The answer to why toddlers don't do what they're told is:
"Because."
When I asked her to expound upon these results, she said:
"NO!"
I guess that means we're ready for publication.
---don't make me break out my red pen.
Doesn't apply to me. I have better things to do than chase after and cajole the little snotlings.
The media likes to portray childrearing as nothing but Precious Kodak Moments when any parent with a drop of honesty will tell you that it's anything but. It's nothing but tedious, thankless work.
Oh, and did I mention that children are one of the main tools The Man uses to keep you in line? Can't risk getting fired from your job when Sprogulina needs braces, can you?
Parenthood: Just Say No.
What makes you think that the adult perspective on science and the world has any grounding in reality? You're dreaming. I'm dreaming. All most adults do is build selfish egos, play games and lie to children in the name of controlling an illusion that is starting to fall apart. And parents wonder why their kids won't listen when they lie to them.
It amazes and sickens me how adults like to think they're right about everything and that children need to be fixed. It's symptomatic of the society we live in; address symptoms and try to fix things instead of looking at the actual causes and rooting them out.
I may be an adult, but the degree of adulthood cynicism and outright lying is something that has bothered me since I was a kid. Ender's Game summed it up quite nicely for me: 'sometimes lies were more dependable than the truth'
Maybe I'm overreacting to your statement that the study seems to be pushing the idea that there's literally a functional difference in their brain. The fact that you then ask 'Can we do anything about it?' and think that it might be useful seems very naive. Of course there's a functional difference, and that's important. WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY? Ethics, my dear. Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. But what should be done that isn't being done? Adults like forseeable futures with retirement plans, reliable savings, investments and loans. Most adults are afraid of thinking for themselves and require dependencies like jobs, oil and money to function. Thing is, they're all just systems designed to sustain the so-called American Dream, which is really just another way of saying American Illusion. Today they're in the process of breaking down, but in the name of preserving this status quo we supposedly have change we can believe in. Instead of 'investing in our future' perhaps we should be divesting our current of the temples that channel our economic waters.
Yikes, I'm starting to ramble. Time to wrap this up.
Respect your child and learn how to learn from them, and they will teach you of the Mysteries. Try to label and classify 'disorders' in children and all you'll ever be doing is ignoring the societal issues that they are reflecting.
Neutiquam erro
I've been studying nonviolent parenting in the last 6 months. All parents were once children and the parenting they will disperse is based on the parenting they received.
Children trigger countless issues in parents, resulting in all kinds of child abuse.
Expecting parents can reduce the harm they'll do their child by
1. Learn about child development and adjust their expectations. For example believing that a baby is manipulating their parents by crying at night or punishing a toddler for having a nervous breakdown ( often called "tantrums" by adults ) is inappropriate and dangerous.
2. Getting in touch with their own childhood and the abuse they received, and stop calling the abuse "parenting." This may take therapy and time. You were spanked as a child and turned OK? Wrong. You were spanked as a child and turned out to believe that spanking is OK.
3. Learn to feel, accept, process and understand their own emotions so that they don't act on autopilot when triggered. Losing it as a parent and shaking/smacking/spanking a child who can not protect themselves or run away is very, very harmful and never brings good. Never.
4. Learn to maintain emotional connection with another human being, especially when things are not perfect. You can be angry with someone, not just at someone.
5. I highly recommend looking into nonviolent parenting and nonviolent communication. The war between parent and child wastes time, energy and only teaches war/violence. Boundaries may be kept without violence. Alfie Kohn's books are founded on research and very accessible. ( www.alfiekohn.com )
Ultimately, parents parent the way they were parented. Abused children grow up to be adults whose gut feeling tells them that abuse is the norm.
Most parenting education focuses on behavioral psychology and successful control and domination over the child's will. In the long term, breaking a child's will is the worst thing for that human being and takes a lot of effort to repair.
And, nonviolent parenting != permissive parenting.
Applied science? You must mean engineering. If we say that a scientist attempts to discover the rules by which the natural world operates via observation and reason, then applied science isn't science, because its aim is not to understand the natural world.
You can personally define it any way you like. To take that to the absurd for illustrative purposes, you could exclude any science that doesn't deal with understanding chocolate cakes. It just probably won't agree with the accepted definition that the rest of the world uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/applied%20science
Applying a snobbish elitist and non-standard definition isn't very constructive. Pun intended.
Pure science isn't the only kind of science. The knowledge gained about practical application also requires use of the scientific method and codifies knowledge in a useful and practical way that takes into account subtleties that pure methods cannot. A classical example in celestial mechanics is perturbation theory. The N-body problem isn't one that's easily solved for the general case. There's no easy formula. However there are methods for refining the orbit of a planet or minor body based on successive estimations.
There is no engineering without science.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It is quite obvious with toddlers. I don't understand being completely against praise and punishments. How will you deal with daily situations? You can't wait your toddler to learn every attitude with cause and effect. You will have to provide a quicker effect. You may try this quick effect be nice, soft and natural, it will be a concentrated effect and will indeed be a praise or even a punishment. Like, you can't go to park without brushing your teeth. You may say that, this is not a punishment, we normally brush our teeth before going out. But no, this is a rule for preventing tooth loss. Concentrated effect (punishment) is staying at home, as you can't wait until he/she looses a tooth.
I would also like to point out that the authors have done some really interesting work, and the reception this headline is receiving here at /. is unfortunate and undeserving.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
ROFLMAO! Well Done!
I would like to humbly suggest you may have left out the 'take your piggy bank, and raid the cookie jar' between 'run inside' and 'burn down the house'.
Just sayin'...But your version fits the original statement much better.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Nothing but the actual experience of raising a child yourself will prepare you for it, regardless of how intelligence you might be.
Horseshit. The only people that say that are parents that hate getting good advice from people who don't have children. Yes, all the wisdom in the world doesn't apply to every child, they are all unique, but most everything does apply to most children. And it's easy to learn. And yes, I have a child.
Learn to love Alaska
There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.
Brendan Behan
Irish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964)
Hm-m-m. I don't see you offering your own experience with your own children. Allow me to suggest that until you've raised children, your studying is just so much academic bullshit.
"... the parenting they will disperse is based on the parenting they received. Children trigger countless issues in parents, resulting in all kinds of child abuse."
First, people vary wildly in their levels of self awareness about themselves and their history, and are influenced in varying degrees. Broad statements like this are simply meaningless bullshit. Second, it demeans real abusive situations to label, as you seem to do, any parenting practice that differs from your ideal as "abusive". Meet up with some kid who has bones broken, or who has lived with an end stage alcoholic who abuses her sexually, and then come back and tell me that it's abusive to swat a toddler on the rear. I'm not defending spanking, as I don't think it's effective, but your declaration simply paints a picture of you as ignorant and strident.
Calling a tantrum a 'nervous breakdown' is putting the child up on a bit of a pedestal. Kids have tantrums because they get frustrated that they aren't getting what they want. In many cases, it's a chosen and controllable behavior. If you had been around kids, you'd know this. In some situations, they learn that the behavior indeed gets them a positive result. A nervous breakdown, whatever that is, is a more persistant and unhealthy condition that indicates a problem with the person having the breakdown. Tantrums, on the other hand, are healthy, age appropriate behavior. You may not like them, but they are entirely normal. If whatever you are studying is comparing tantrums to adult nervous breakdowns, I think you should question your source. -Every- toddler has tantrums. Very few people have nervous breakdowns.
I'm reluctant to proclaim too much on what "must" be done as a parent. What worked for my wife and me was clear definition of boundaries, consistent enforcement of transgressions of boundaries, and age appropriate communication with the kids about why the boundaries existed. Age appropriate discussion with a screaming 2 year old is picking him up and carrying him out of the grocery store and strapping him in the car seat.
You sound pretty willing to proclaim what "most parenting education" is and does. I wonder if you have any experience that would make such a statement meaningful. After 17 years as a parent, your statement does not fit my observations. Further, your apparent belief that parenting should not involve dominating the child at least at times seems naive. Do you recommend not dominating your toddler when he tries to run into the street? Should we not control our child's willfulness and make them wear a bicycle helmet?
I think you should get a dog, and learn how to live with it, before you try to have children. You're reading some stuff that is going to give you trouble. Living with a dog will teach you the error of your ways, and when you end up with a neurotic and misbehaving dog, you won't do as much harm as when you do it with a kid.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
You're a stupid fucking moron, you dumb piece of shit.
"The very young do not always do what they are told."
Seriously, what is so hard to understand? The Nox explained this many seasons ago...
"punishing a toddler for having a nervous breakdown ( often called "tantrums" by adults ) is inappropriate and dangerous."
I totally agree, children are actually high explosives and can detonate at the slightest jostling. Handle with caution, call the bomb squad if you hear ticking.
"You were spanked as a child and turned OK? Wrong. You were spanked as a child and turned out to believe that spanking is OK."
The world is a tough place, unless you hit your children enough they aren't going to be prepared for the real world.
Many adults could benefit from having their butt paddled, it might adjust their attitude. Bad bank executives, naughty, NO!
ps - I'm glad you have a little religion to follow. Just don't be surprised that people you perceive as otherwise rational don't take your little soapbox outbursts too seriously.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Well, it's too late for anyone to read this but anyway: I just read "On intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins, and its theory really makes sense here. A great read.
Just because a government doesn't understand something doesn't make it bad. 'the village' in this context would usually just mean your extended family.
Maybe "it takes more than just a mum and dad to raise a child" would be a better way of putting it.
Didn't see this kind of thing here 10 years ago.
> They should only do research that would yield unexpected results.
LOL.. (My way of modding your post 'funny')
Perfect oxymoron there. ;)
I think most scientists are disappointed when their experiments support "common sense." It's when the results make no sense at all that things get interesting.
I always knew it, and I think it was common knowledge before, because I remember my parents mentioning it: only by sticking their hand on the stove or their fingers in the electical socket can small children truly understand why you're telling them not to do so.
I believe this is more to do with experiencing the world and learning about the environment rather than "living in the present" or not. If an eight year-old kid grabs his coat when you tell him it's cold outside, this is not necessarily because he is "planning for the future", but because he has already experienced the harsh temperatures of winter and learned from it, prompting him to oblige. The older child's reaction is learned behaviour.
So, in my opinion, this is not news. It's not even a good study. Toddlers do not lack any cognitive abilities inherent in older humans (at least none that this study can bring forth); the older humans have gained some experience about their environment which helps them make better decisions. The lack of such experiences and the need to understand their environment is probably why small children seem to ignore your warnings to the contrary.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
You can tell your neighbor maxing out five credit cards after having leveraged his home to the hilt that he's heading for a cliff. You can point out that his neighbor on the other side was just laid off and now will lose everything. You can tell him you read in the company memo that they're planning a 10% headcount reduction in his division.
And he laughs at you while unloading his 100-in. plasma screen TV.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
So what you are saying is that, if you--a parent--tell a would-be parent how to deal with a particular situation with his future child, he won't necessarily listen to you or understand your advise until he actually experiences the situation by himself; perhaps stumble on its execution, until he ultimately learns first hand why other parents made such recommendations.
Kind of like a three year-old.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
The problem with many 3 yr olds, is that they do have a lot of tendencies of adults. One of my daughters was extremely advanced with language at age three she was speaking in full sentences and in what seemed to be very intelligent (and stubborn) expressions. I still remember coming to the realization that while my daughter was stating very rational arguments, she had no idea what she was really saying... because she was only three. It helped me calm down a lot and just enjoy her nonsense a lot more.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
As a native Hebrew speaker, let me correct the errors in your interpretation.
Please forgive the ad-hoc transliteration.
> Yowm means about four hundred years:
> Numbers 20:15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time (yowm);
> and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers
The original text says "yamim rabim", literally: many days.
> Yowm means forty years:
> 1 Kings 11:42 And the time (yowm) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [was] forty years.
The original text says "ve-ha-yamim [...] arbaim shana", literally: and the days [...] forty years.
> Yowm means twenty years:
> 1 Samuel 7:2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim,
> that the time (yowm) was long; for it was twenty years
The original text says "va-irbu ha-yamim, va-ihyu esrim shana", literally: the days multiplied until they became 20 years.
> Yowm means seven and a half years:
> 2 Samuel 2:11 And the time (yowm) that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
The original text says "va-yhi mispar ha-yamim [...]", literally: the number of the days was.
In short: "yom" (singular) is "day", approximately the time from sunset to sunrise.
"yamim" (plural) is "days", often used in the sense of "time" (in the same sense that the word "shanim" -- "years" is used).
> The words boqer and ereb are both used in other contexts as well. They are also used to mean beginning and end.
I'd like to see a reference to that. If possible, one that does not botch the translation.
And incidentally, evening is "erev", the Hebrew "Bet" (for B) and "Vet" (for V) are actually the same letter and the pronunciation depends on whether there's a dot ("dagesh") inside the letter. It is often omitted in modern practice and inferred from the context (same thing with most vowels), however it is present in the "official" text.
> The only thing we know for sure from this writings, is that there were distinct eras with a beginning and end. The rest is worded ambiguously.
Only if you misread the text. Otherwise, it is quite clear.
> You could argue that this was for the purpose of both making sense to the people of the time,
> and also being technically accurate at the same time.
Or I could argue that you were misled by a less than accurate translation.
Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it.
becomes
Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it. And, fifteen minutes later, they try to remember why they put their jacket on.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I'll try to address a few of these, in case you are actually interested in discourse.
"You sound pretty willing to proclaim what "most parenting education" is and does." -- Yes, I do, based on a review of the currently available titles. Behavioral research is prevalent. Books tend to teach parents how to break their kid's will in order to make them more obedient or nice... in many cases before the child is developmentally ready, catering to the parents' needs rather than the child's.
"... your apparent belief that parenting should not involve dominating the child at least at times seems naive. Do you recommend not dominating your toddler when he tries to run into the street? Should we not control our child's willfulness and make them wear a bicycle helmet?"
Again, nonviolent parenting != permissive parenting. Taking your toddler to safety when they are running into the street is not dominating, it's protecting them. Explaining to your child WHY they have to wear a helmet and refusing to let them out without it is not dominating either.
But... do you punish your toddler for going into the street again? Do you take the bike away for a week if you see your child going out without the helmet anyway? Both of these situations require imagination, possible change of approach and conflict resolution. Making the child not do what they want to do is just one of the ways, which happens to be the most straightforward for the parent. Understanding what the child needs and resolving the conflict together, possibly by offering alternatives (another place to run, buying a helmet together etc.), is also a possibility.
Nonviolence means doing all the protection that your children need, in collaboration with them. Staying emotionally connected, preserving your respect for their human dignity and their trust in you.
Unfortunately for most of us who grew up in violence, getting what we want involves power over. It is possible to support and guide a child with less or no bullying and more collaboration. And, as studies consistently show that it is more efficient and healthier, I don't see a reason to not support the nonviolent paradigm.
For reference, check this and this and compare to this.
The only people that say that are parents that hate getting good advice from people who don't have children.
Good advice from people who don't have children? Where can I find such advice?
The only parenting advice I've ever gotten from non-parents falls into one of the following categories:
Even as a parent, I am very reluctant to offer unsolicited parenting advice because I have no idea which battles the parent had to pick to get to where he/she is right now.
Every kid is different. Every parent/child relationship is different, too.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Explaining to your child WHY they have to wear a helmet and refusing to let them out without it is not dominating either.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That's all I have to say. You'll understand when you have kids.
Understanding what the child needs and resolving the conflict together, possibly by offering alternatives (another place to run, buying a helmet together etc.), is also a possibility.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That's all I have to say. You'll understand when you have kids.
Unfortunately for most of us who grew up in violence
Ok, sounds like you're doing the right thing by researching better parenting techniques than the ones you grew up with. That is commendable. So you don't get frustrated and revert to beating the living snot out of your kids, I recommend you add another book to your reading list: here.
Your kid is not a mini-adult. Forget this at your peril.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Good advice from people who don't have children? Where can I find such advice?
Unfortunately, you are not eligible. Since you believe the advice isn't good, you will not actually hear it. If you ever decide in the future to listen to others, then feel free to start accepting it.
Even as a parent, I am very reluctant to offer unsolicited parenting advice because I have no idea which battles the parent had to pick to get to where he/she is right now.
No one should offer unsolicited advice. And that which is offered and unwanted, will be discarded, even when right. And since all advice from childless people would be unwanted to you, and you'd never solicit anything from them, then you'll never have to worry about accidentally paying attention to such things.
I've had a number of people who solicited comments in a mixed group and I answered ignore my advice. And now, some of them have said things like "It's nothing like you thought, huh?" when it is very much what I thought. I wasn't surprised. I had a good idea of what it would be like, how to work through some issues, and had shared my advice with those that asked and took my own advice when it was applicable. If they are too stupid to take good advice when offered, I can't help it.
Every kid is different. Every parent/child relationship is different, too.
And you take the advice from someone with one child, who has no experience with your child and your situation, knowing that all are different, and you put that advice above that of someone who hasn't had a child? Why is that? At best, you'll get a result for what someone else used, but the childless person may actually have a broader view that would be more helpful because they aren't focused on the one way they "know" works for that because it worked for them once.
Learn to love Alaska
Jesus christ, shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Child rearing is an age old practice, its been done effectively for millenia. Dominant behavior is just one of the standard mechanisms for rearing young, as most mammals do.
You CANNOT reason with a 2 year old. "Nonviolence" is such a stupid thing to assert when raising a child, mild doses of fear is how all parents, from dogs to humans, have been raising young for MILLIONS of years.
You do not treat very young children like they are people. They are very young children. They behave like total retarded animals sometimes, its just how undeveloped minds work sometimes. You have to deal with it, not try to have intelligent discourse with a barely operational brain.
God I hope you never raise children, or if you do, your fucked up monsters stay far far away from my reasonable, well behaved children. Whom I spank when they test the rules a little too far.
I'm not saying that at all. Yes, parents-to-be (and those with children, period) should listen to those around them for advice. However, this is no replacement for experience. I can tell you how to ride a bike, but you won't understand it until you do it.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Again, just like a three year-old: He should listen to adults providing advice, but boneheaded decisions could still be made until that time on which they have an experience that brings forth the same conclusions.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out the similarities in learning behaviour between toddlers and adults, which contrasts the superficial conclusions reached by the study in the article: that small children lack some cognitive abilities present in adults.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
And you take the advice from someone with one child, who has no experience with your child and your situation, knowing that all are different, and you put that advice above that of someone who hasn't had a child? Why is that?
Would you take career advice from a college student? No? Why is that?
Because a college student has lots of great theories that sound great inside a classroom, but because he hasn't been there nor done that, he doesn't realize that much of what goes on inside a classroom gets thrown out the window upon graduation.
That he argues those theories with conviction is irrelevant, and frankly, I'd rather roll my eyes, say "Thanks, I'll take that under consideration," and go talk to someone worthwhile.
At best, you'll get a result for what someone else used, but the childless person may actually have a broader view that would be more helpful because they aren't focused on the one way they "know" works for that because it worked for them once.
Just because I'll listen to advice from a fellow parent doesn't mean I'm going to follow that advice if I don't think it will work for my kids. But a battle-tested theory is much more valuable than some half-baked idea that got you an A- on your child psych paper.
As for you, I'm sure you have a lot of great and valuable theories on parenting. Please allow me to answer in advance with a, "Thanks, I'll take that under consideration."
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
That he argues those theories with conviction is irrelevant, and frankly, I'd rather roll my eyes, say "Thanks, I'll take that under consideration," and go talk to someone worthwhile.
Yes, and that's why you are ignorant. You evaluate the source, and exclude all those without experience you judge worthy. Yet, for some reason, you'd hold those with nothing more than isolated and abnormal anecdotal experience on a pedestal. Really, one person that has heald one life-long job in their life is worthy, while a college student who has heald multiple summer jobs and watched the real-world from a persepctive different than yours is somehow inferior to you and unworthy of giving you any advice. Not to mention that you state you'd ignore all correct advice given to you from someone you deem unworthy.
You are a pompous ass that deserves to live in the ignorance you purposefully surround yourself with.
As for you, I'm sure you have a lot of great and valuable theories on parenting. Please allow me to answer in advance with a, "Thanks, I'll take that under consideration."
And there, you are an inconsistent hypocritical ignorant ass. As I stated, I am a parent. I did have theories before parenting, and they have, for the most part, all been right. In fact, the "hardest" part of parenting isn't figuring out what to do, but doing what should be done when a little person is sitting there arguing with you. It's easier to give in, but that makes many tasks later harder. But then, that was almost the advice of "be firm and consistent" so you should probably not follow that, it was a useless piece of advice that I gave more than 10 years before becoming a parent, and have found useful after, so it should be ignored by you. You should, in fact, do the opposite because my advice must be bad because it was first uttered when I was childless. Feel free to burn your computer so you don't accidentally read any advice from someone that is childless, or worse yet, any advice from people like me who managed to form career advice before having a career and formed advice on child care before having a child, yet found that the theories are well founded and quite applicable in the real-world.
Learn to love Alaska
"Be firm and consistent"? Let's see. Does that fall into the category of "Wrong"? No, so it must fall into the category of "OK, but obvious."
Let's test that theory. Imagine that you are in a grocery store. You have a cart full of food, and you just need a few more items before checking out. As you push the cart up the aisle, your 3-year-old proclaims, "I want a box of Sugar Poofs cereal," grabs it, puts it in the cart, and in the process knocks 5 other items off the shelf.
Naturally, you conjure up your best "firm and consistent" voice and say, "Now Caydenn, you know that we don't eat Sugar Poofs at our house, now please put that box back on the shelf, along with the other items you knocked down."
As you take Caydenn out of the shopping cart to pick up the toppled sugary food-substitutes, he screams at you, "But I can eat Sugar Poofs at Ashleigh's house!" But of course you are prepared with your "firm and consistent" response: "Well, you don't live at Ashleigh's house, and at our house, we do not eat Sugar Poofs."
And here it comes: "You're the meanest parent in the whole wide world! I hate you! You're not my friend!" followed by a knock-down, drag-out tantrum on the floor. Kicking, screaming, crying, shouting.
Can I please be the one at that point to come up to you, smile, and say, "I recommend you be firm and consistent."?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Can I please be the one at that point to come up to you, smile, and say, "I recommend you be firm and consistent."?
No. Because the statement "do not give unsolicited advice" trumps all. But thanks for playing. That you are unable to control your children isn't my problem, either. And if you are bothered when children complain and throw tantrums, then I suggest you stay home where they are unlikely to be found, rather than giving out unsolicited advice when someone is obviously in a position where they would have trouble putting such advice down on paper.
But that you are so elitist as to ignore correct advice when given because you don't like the source speaks volumes, and that you are always right is obvious in your responses. Oh, and firm and consistent is not obvious. Well, perhaps obvious to those not in the events at the minute, but something that is pretty much ignored by most parents when the situations arise.
Learn to love Alaska
No. Because the statement "do not give unsolicited advice" trumps all.
You're the one who said you appreciated unsolicited advice. I'm the one who said I am loathe to offer it. I think you are changing the rules of the game midstream. Why should I not be allowed to make an exception to my no unsolicited advice rule for someone who actually enjoys unsolicited advice?
That you are unable to control your children isn't my problem, either.
Well, you would be putting words in my mouth. My kids are long past the tantrum stage, but when they were there, I could stop any tantrum with just two calmly-uttered words. Sure, it took a month or two to get there, but once there, the level of frustration experienced by both parent and child plummeted.
And if you are bothered when children complain and throw tantrums,
Again with the putting words in my mouth. When I witness a child throwing a tantrum, I do not react nor do I give the matter any attention at all. After all, the child is carrying on in search of attention. I may be smug, but I'm not cruel.
Oh, and firm and consistent is not obvious.
And you're concerned that my words "speak volumes" about me?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You're the one who said you appreciated unsolicited advice. I'm the one who said I am loathe to offer it.
The first comments regarding unsolicited advice were my statements. I said, "No one should offer unsolicited advice." And somehow you are so confused as to think that my statement and consistent upholding of that statement mean the opposite. But you haven't understood anything I've said, nor any advice, solicited or not, from anyone that's ever given you any (since you know more than all of them combined) and in light of my comments in direct contradiction to your statemtens about what I said, I know you aren't paying the least bit of attention to what I say.
Again with the putting words in my mouth.
You made up an example of you in a store. I commented on your words. If you don't like the way your words sound to others, don't use them.
My kids are long past the tantrum stage, but when they were there, I could stop any tantrum with just two calmly-uttered words.
I was wondering what two words, but then I realized that it was useless information. Really. Nothing you have to say about what those words are is relevant. Yet, someone working on those issues may be curious, as if those words convey meaning. They could be "time out" or "fuck you" for all the effect that has on someone else's kids. The real issue is that there was some training in getting to that point, and that would have been obvious to me prior to kids, and after.
Learn to love Alaska
"That's one."
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock