Show HN: Made this with my daughter to help kids ages 2 to 4 learn logic

Post by tobr » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

mosseater wrote: post #45

tom_mellior wrote: post #16

I think the digits should be arranged 0 to 9, not 1 to 9 followed by 0. Because 0 is less than 1. Also, when the correct answer is revealed, it would be great to somehow highlight the cats that are actually described by the formula. Yes, this is hard for 0. Also, the animations feel too fast to me. I find they make the whole thing stressful, somehow. ALSO, when a wrong answer is given, the question disappears! That's…

I disagree with the number arrangement bit. I'd imagine kids are learning to use the keyboard whilst using a computer's browse. 0 placement is on point with what's in front of them.

Post by eitland » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #41

avip wrote: post #7

Nice website. I like it. Please don't use it with your kids (of 2 to 4!!). There are more than enough actual objects scuttered in your house.

Actual objects don't teach this sort of thing. They may well teach other things. I encourage you to parent your own children. HN users are typically adults and can make their own decisions on whether some screen time for their kids is ok, and what sort of screen time. Doing a logic puzzle is not, in my opinion, the same as going from video to video of squeaky voiced ladies with brightly colored nails opening toy eggs…

Post by jonny_eh » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

eitland wrote: post #53

robbrown451 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual objects don't teach this sort of thing. They may well teach other things. I encourage you to parent your own children. HN users are typically adults and can make their own decisions on whether some screen time for their kids is ok, and what sort of screen time. Doing a logic puzzle is not, in my opinion, the same as going from video to video of squeaky voiced ladies with brightly colored nails opening toy eggs…

Just finished watching a film about Magnus Carlsen and how early he started and one of my key takeaways was that getting extremely good in chess actually helped him do well in other aspects of life as well. Then of course his family doesn't seem to be pushing him, rather than supporting him, and if they had been pushing him hard into this it could possibly had a totally different outcome.

Post by jonny_eh » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #21

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 to 4 is still early in the development of physical attributes, focus, hand eye coordination, balance and what have you. Zero intentional and structured screen time seems entirely appropriate. Let them develop a physical world and interact with it before encouraging screen addicted couch potato. That will come despite best efforts later...

Do you have studies to prove that zero screen time is beneficial? I have a two year old who has learnt plenty from his screen time - between 15m to 30m per day.

Post by IggleSniggle » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

SerLava wrote: post #35

stakhanov wrote: post #12

So, I am older than 4 and have a PhD in a logic-related field. BUT. I have to admit that I had trouble answering some of those questions. For example: "How many blue cats are not bouncing" when there are no blue cats on the screen. The game seems to assume that the right answer is zero, but I'm not sure I concur. There is a presupposition there about blue cats being in existence and if there are none on screen, the r…

When you treat the screen as just a sample of all the cats, and you assume that every question is really asking "out of the ones that are on the screen" then 0 makes more sense. The language used by the quiz treats the cats as real, so it's like you're sampling and then evaluating the sample. If I apply your logic to that, then we never know any quantity of any type of cat in any question, because there are more off-…