Why there are no children and we should think less • Hacker News Board

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#21

Post by chipsy » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 8:38 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #15

jonmc12 wrote: post #13

I was surprised to read this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#As_a_non-adult - "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Society began to relate to the child not as a miniature adult but as a person of a lower level of maturity needing adult protection, love and nurturing. This change can be traced in painting: In the Middle Ages, chi…

I don't think that point of view even makes sense. Humans and lower mammals are all born more or less helpless. They require caring parents for nourishment and protection in order to survive. Certainly you can argue that the period of "childhood" has been greatly extended in recent centuries, but it makes no sense that the concept of a child as something other than just a physically smaller adult emerged in the 16th…

If the vocabulary doesn't exist(or isn't predominant), it becomes hard to point out the distinctions. Certainly, humans recognized from pre-civilized times that there were children, but expectations of children were going to be different - in a smaller tribal society, for instance, each one would be a unique person.

A more recent concept is the idea of the "teenager" in western culture - people who aren't adults and aren't children either.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#22

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 8:45 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #14

tsunamifury wrote: post #10

Just because children and adults are both part of superclass 'human' doesn't mean there aren't extremely important differences between subclass 'child' and subclass 'adult'. Also I don't seem to understand what that has to do with 'think less and do more' -- which I patently disagree with. While we can get in analysis paralysis, so many of the problems I observe from big systems, whether they be digital or social com…

Well obviously there was the observation that children tend to operate more in a "think less" mode. They learn by trial and error: do something, evaluate consequences, do or don't do again. That's fine when you are learning things like fine control of your motor skills, or how to speak the language your parents are using. Even as adults, some things are only really learned by doing: developing skill at playing a spor…

[deleted]

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#23

Post by zerostar07 » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 8:47 PM UTC

Developmentally, children have no alternative; that's all they have to wire their brains (from learning to walk to learning to talk and on). Part of the things you learn as young person is to delay gratification, and think before you act because it pays off in the end. Adults are perfectly justified to use that acquired skill. Overanalysing is usually pointless, but the opposite, not doing so at all is ... childish.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#24

Post by notJim » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 8:49 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #10

Just because children and adults are both part of superclass 'human' doesn't mean there aren't extremely important differences between subclass 'child' and subclass 'adult'. Also I don't seem to understand what that has to do with 'think less and do more' -- which I patently disagree with. While we can get in analysis paralysis, so many of the problems I observe from big systems, whether they be digital or social com…

I agree with this assessment. There are very, very, very significant differences between the brains of children and adults that should profoundly affect the way we approach them. I don't argue that we're doing education correctly now, but to blindly treat children as adults would be a mistake.

As to the author's experiences teaching himself French—the plural of anecdote is not data.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#25

Post by kijin » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 8:52 PM UTC

jonmc12 wrote: post #13

I was surprised to read this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#As_a_non-adult - "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Society began to relate to the child not as a miniature adult but as a person of a lower level of maturity needing adult protection, love and nurturing. This change can be traced in painting: In the Middle Ages, chi…

It seems that the thesis that Stone abandoned (according to your third link) was about love in marriage, not about the increasing awareness of children's nature. He may have had multiple theses, not all of which he abandoned.

The idea that Western societies' perception of children went from "miniature adult" to "distinct category of human" in the 16th and 17th century is not an unusual theory among Renaissance scholars. It might not be the most accurate description of what happened, but its credibility is not as suspicious as you seem to think it is. Art historians regularly appeal to this theory, not only in English contexts, but also when talking about Italian art and the rest of Renaissance.

My sister (an art history major) wrote an honors paper on Titian a couple of years ago, focusing on how the artist's portrayal of children changed over the decades. There are transitions that cannot be explained simply by saying "He was just trying to paint more realistically". For example, the context, setting, composition, props, etc. of this painting (http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=c&a=p&#...), when analyzed with the usual tools of art historians and compared to other paintings of children, suggest that at least part of the transition involved a shift in the concept of a child. The way in which similar portrayals spread throughout Europe in the following decades also supports the theory that this new concept was being rapidly adopted and developed. (I'm not an art historian so I can't explain this very well, but I'm sure there are many scholarly sources for this.) Artists might not have invented the new concept of a child, but they were certainly responding to it -- and Renaissance artists were often the first to respond to the latest philosophical developments of their times.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#26

Post by WiseWeasel » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 9:14 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #8

I appreciate the conclusion of this post but biologically it is somewhat incorrect. We know that humans go through specific stages of mental development and brain growth (the last of which happens in the early 20's). It's true that children have no filters -- very young children experience everything. The more they learn, the more they are filter out the irrelevant details of the world and can then use their brain po…

Sure, you can turn that clock back. Living in different countries or cultures can help break down perception, exposing misconceptions and the fundamental beliefs you took for granted. In a more dramatic fashion, LSD and a few other substances, as well as strong spiritual and near-death experiences can lead to a sudden shift in perspective. After such an experience, you might find yourself spending a lot more mental effort observing the world around you, as the filters you've relied on are removed from your field of view.

It might even be observed that abuse of certain substances, such as alcohol, could at least temporarily reverse a person's level of mental development (Woot, happy new year!).

It's far from being as tested and documented a science as developmental biology and psychology, but there are various commonly practiced methods for disrupting the progress of that mental development clock from a smooth arc to a more tangled shape.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#27

Post by davidw » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 9:26 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #14

tsunamifury wrote: post #10

Just because children and adults are both part of superclass 'human' doesn't mean there aren't extremely important differences between subclass 'child' and subclass 'adult'. Also I don't seem to understand what that has to do with 'think less and do more' -- which I patently disagree with. While we can get in analysis paralysis, so many of the problems I observe from big systems, whether they be digital or social com…

Well obviously there was the observation that children tend to operate more in a "think less" mode. They learn by trial and error: do something, evaluate consequences, do or don't do again. That's fine when you are learning things like fine control of your motor skills, or how to speak the language your parents are using. Even as adults, some things are only really learned by doing: developing skill at playing a spor…

Sometimes they operate like so: do something, evaluate consequences, realize it's not to their liking, and pitch a huge hissy fit. Preferably in public, in front of lots of people. Bonus points for attempting to smash the object of their frustration.

They are definitely different from most adults who have their shit together.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#28

Post by olliesaunders » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #11

Great post. Actually got me to thinking about my own upbringing. My parents were either brilliant or lucky (probably somewhere in between). I was brought up in a style when people were expected to "do their best", regardless of age. I walked a mile to school at age 5, did my own laundry at age 7, cooked for my mother and younger siblings at age 9, and starting working at age 12. I didn't think much about it until I w…

I think you took a look more from this than most of us. I found denying the existence of children to be a rather poorly justified in the article but you provided a decent justification.

I think parents often treat their children as children because of the formation of habits that start from the child being a baby. They get used to them being helpless, design their behavior around that, and then fail to notice when that situation changes. When this occurs it almost become the child’s responsibility to say ”Hey, I can do new stuff now!” periodically (most frequently in teenage years), at which point it is usually ignored. Another reason: letting your kids do the stuff that you used to do for them means letting go of some control. Parents worry what would happen if they allowed their child to do the things that they do: “Sure I could let my child cook their own meals but what if they just cooked lots of unhealthy food.”

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#29

Post by olliesaunders » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 10:54 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #8

I appreciate the conclusion of this post but biologically it is somewhat incorrect. We know that humans go through specific stages of mental development and brain growth (the last of which happens in the early 20's). It's true that children have no filters -- very young children experience everything. The more they learn, the more they are filter out the irrelevant details of the world and can then use their brain po…

Yes, crucially younger children don’t have the ability to regulate their desires that well. This has quite significant implications.

Re: Why there are no children and we should think less

#30

Post by pkghost » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 11:09 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #11

Great post. Actually got me to thinking about my own upbringing. My parents were either brilliant or lucky (probably somewhere in between). I was brought up in a style when people were expected to "do their best", regardless of age. I walked a mile to school at age 5, did my own laundry at age 7, cooked for my mother and younger siblings at age 9, and starting working at age 12. I didn't think much about it until I w…

Your father's mentorship style reminds me of Gotama Buddha's style of teaching: not imploring, cajoling, threatening, or demanding, but simply laying out the consequences of any given action and leaving the decision up to the individual. He also suggested that students test his offered truths and develop a first-hand understanding rather than taking his words on faith.

People can get very receptive when you offer help without implying they should take it.