Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 263 posts

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#41

Post by princeb »

OisinMoran wrote: post #11
nostrebored wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using neural networks as a machine learning concept to explain actual concepts in Neuroscience is a huge overstep. People have always thought the most advanced technology can be analogous to cognition, see steam engines and clocks.

Your second sentence is definitely true and very interesting but maybe you'd agree that the gap between our most advanced technology and the brain is decreasing to the point where this will eventually be right.

> gap between our most advanced technology and the brain is decreasing

first we need to understand the brain.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#42

Post by rjsw »

aleem wrote: post #13
padobson wrote: post #9

The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule. I grew up in a household where compliance to parental authority was the prevailing rule. This made me fairly compliant as an adult (which opens you up for exploitation by peers and authority figures), but this wasn't too difficult to…

From one of the comments on the article > Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. Neither strategy makes the slightest difference to what is essentially an autonomous process. Beethoven's father did not back off. And Lars von Trier's parents left him to his own devices. Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood. > My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spuriou…

> When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter.

Proof that genetics has some effect, his daughter was adopted.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#43

Post by slurry »

aleem wrote: post #13
padobson wrote: post #9

The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule. I grew up in a household where compliance to parental authority was the prevailing rule. This made me fairly compliant as an adult (which opens you up for exploitation by peers and authority figures), but this wasn't too difficult to…

From one of the comments on the article > Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. Neither strategy makes the slightest difference to what is essentially an autonomous process. Beethoven's father did not back off. And Lars von Trier's parents left him to his own devices. Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood. > My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spuriou…

> The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman

I was going to pick apart the whole comment, but then this stuck out at me. WTF? The Feynman cult truly knows no shame or rational bounds.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#44

Post by siliconc0w »

I think 'genius' is more about tuning the innate plasticity of a child's mind to be good at a certain type of task. World class chess players see positions and variations like how 'normals' might recognize an old friend. The 'creative' part comes in when you have brain that is marvelously tuned for one thing, you can iterate and experiment very quickly.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#45

Post by pcarolan »

lacampbell wrote: post #31
pcarolan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point about Feynman. The only thing I've found to work is trying everything until something starts to work. Of course, you start with the books to get ideas for what to try next. Ive got one of those kids that bounces off the walls. The older I get though the less I care. Some kids just can't sit still. Kids are society's problem and when we don't build spaces for them to be kids, its gonna happen.

Kids are society's problem Did you consider consulting society first before foisting such a responsibility on us?

Yes. Turns out kids are part of society too.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#46

Post by [deleted] »

lacampbell wrote: post #31
pcarolan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point about Feynman. The only thing I've found to work is trying everything until something starts to work. Of course, you start with the books to get ideas for what to try next. Ive got one of those kids that bounces off the walls. The older I get though the less I care. Some kids just can't sit still. Kids are society's problem and when we don't build spaces for them to be kids, its gonna happen.

Kids are society's problem Did you consider consulting society first before foisting such a responsibility on us?

[deleted]

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#48

Post by lacampbell »

FussyZeus wrote: post #40
lacampbell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously with the future of humans doing work so utterly in question right now I 100% don't buy this narrative at all. I don't know who started it, but something about it makes me reach for a tinfoil hat. The general historical trend has been towards automation but I still don't see any massive change in the horizon.

Robots do better work without breaks, rest, coffee and in many cases without even occupying physical space. We're on the edge of automating driving, one of the most complex and demanding tasks humans do on a regular basis. The benefits for the companies are infinite: a completely docile workforce of robots that don't need anything but a steady flow of power. There is no reason to suspect any jobs are safe any more. I…

Automated driving on an industrial scale is still decades into the future. And even when it comes, arguing that it will be a huge, earth-shaking change seems far fetched.

Like I said, it's the general trend (we could talk about automations on the same scale as your human driver example that have already happened), but the alarmism is not justified.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#49

Post by Retric »

ziikutv wrote: post #22
Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2) This falls into the just world fallacy. Intelligence does not seem to come with real drawbacks. Highly intelligent people often have upper end reflexes, are unusual attractive, highly creative, social, and or content. They are more often taller and live longer as well. The trappings of intelligence are different, but very high raw intelligence is seen across most walks of life including actors, athletes, and sales…

I would also like to point out that while there might not be any direct drawbacks, think about others. How many kids put down those smarter to feel better about themselves? Another disagreement: Not all intelligent people are highly social. Many are introverted. Intelligent or introverted kids get bullied the most.

Your assuming kids are accurately measuring intelegence and then picking on the smartest person. Instead they are picking on an outlier who may be less intelegent than other people in the population with different interests.

Re: How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016)

#50

Post by j9461701 »

Retric wrote: post #14
CuriouslyC wrote: post #3

My personal theory on this is twofold: 1.) High achievers are used to pushing at things to win. Creativity is like a garden - you have to do some tending, but then you have to back off and let the plants grow. Fiddling doesn't help, in fact you're liable to end up killing the plants. 2.) Smart people actually learn too fast. Creativity requires very broad neural connectivity, and I think fast learning tends to produc…

2) This falls into the just world fallacy. Intelligence does not seem to come with real drawbacks. Highly intelligent people often have upper end reflexes, are unusual attractive, highly creative, social, and or content. They are more often taller and live longer as well. The trappings of intelligence are different, but very high raw intelligence is seen across most walks of life including actors, athletes, and sales…

This is only true up to a point. Past ~125 IQ, you start running into serious social problems that mean such individuals are much less likely to obtain leadership positions, join intellectually challenging professions, or obtain advanced degrees.

https://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropria...

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2017-14279-001/

Post reply on HN