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!
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.
A grown woman's pupils and vagina dialate when she sees a big cock. If anything, that just proves that
...while [sensory information] seems to [be ignored], the study found that [humans remember sensory input, and] store the information for later use.
I believe that humans continue to use that same mechanism throughout life, and modern corporate financial management proves my point. In short, humans not only listen to what they want to, they also remember what they want to.
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.
Maybe if doctors would have more kids instead of studying them in laboratories, then they would "discover" these insights immediately.
It's like young engineers who tediously write out what working mechanics already know. Academics can solve problems on paper. Put them in the real world, and they flunk out of life.
I suggest you read Slashdot
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.
if scientists are so dumb then why are you fucks wasting your lives wiping viruses off of the computers of people who earn more money than you rather than racking up nobel prizes yourself
fucking retards
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
"...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 :-)
guys are usuallRy for successful
"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.
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.
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!
According to Dana Carvey
... 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.
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.
...than the parents. See: Reincarnation, past life evidence. Take the RED pill.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
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
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'
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.
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."
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...
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).
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.
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.
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
"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...
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.
Didn't see this kind of thing here 10 years ago.
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.
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"