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

Why there are no children and we should think less

leostartsup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

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

#11

Post by edw519 »

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 went to college and realized how helpless most people my age were.

Sometimes I think that this upbringing, more than anything else, has been most responsible for my success. To this day, when I'm debating whether or not to do something, I imagine my father saying, "That code isn't going to write itself." He treated me like that at a very early age and I continue to treat myself that way now.

The concept of "there are no children" is just another way of looking at the same thing. Thanks, OP, for the new perspective.

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

#13

Post by jonmc12 »

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, children were portrayed in art as miniature adults with no childish characteristics. In the 16th century, images of children began to acquire a distinct childish appearance. From the late 17th century onwards, children were shown playing."

However, reading the source article (http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/essays/childhood.htm), I would say that this point of view (Lawrence Stone, et al) is not well supported. First, realize that this insight was made only to studies of the UK from 1500-1800 (a period very likely marked more strongly by society's ability to express notions of childhood through art - the renaissance, than to evolve the definition of human childhood so rapidly). Second, Stone himself abandoned the thesis of his work in the 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Stone#Ideas) as more evidence about this time period was presented by his peers.

I suspect that some of these theories would not have emerged at all if evolutionary psychology, our understanding of the mammalian brain, and studies of mammals in their natural child-rearing environments had been readily available at the time when "The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" was written.

Anyhow, I challenge that wikipedia probably should not quote the work in this context in the 'Child' page, nor should it be treated as a credible theory in the discussion of this article.

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

#14

Post by ams6110 »

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 sport or a musical instrument for example.

But I agree with you. The consequences get to be more painful and can affect a lot more than just oneself if one carries this too far.

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

#15

Post by ams6110 »

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 century.

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

#16

Post by SoftwareMaven »

I disagree. The physiological differences between children and adults is large, particularly in the brain.

However, I think that adults who make the effort to continue to work on neuroplasticity into their adult years will likely be more intelligent, probably be more successful, and maybe be happier. I also think if all humans did that, we would all be smarter, more successful, and happier.

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

#17

Post by cafard »

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 that he has something of a jump on the "think less"...

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

#18

Post by j_baker »

So much to say here. I think this is an important issue. Being kid-like is central to being creative. But at the same time, being adult-like is central to being productive. The key isn't to become a creative kid who does nothing productive any more than it is to become an adult who does a lot but accomplishes nothing[1].

A few other thoughts on this subject:

I don't think that being child-like necessarily means one should think less. You just have to think differently. We adults have lots of experience that makes us think a certain way. Part of going back to being a kid is in learning to think in ways that bypasses that experience. For example, experience has taught me that Java is the best language to use for a team of 100 programmers. But I'm going to use Python for reasons x, y, and z.

Nor do I think it's a compliment to be called overly kid-like. Bear something else in mind: kids are fairly self-centered. They're at the stage in life where everything is about them. Everybody drops what they're doing to take care of them. Narcissists are people who are essentially frozen at this stage in time. This is why some people have noticed that there's a correlation between narcissism and creativity[2].

All the above noted, I do think that we as adults need to remind ourselves that we can't be adults all the time. It's just a question of when the time is appropriate, which can be very difficult to determine.

Did you know that we invented children? Children don’t exist.

I realize the irony in my thinking to refute a statement that's intended to point out why you shouldn't think. But this is a non-sequitur. We invented laptops, and there's a laptop right in front of me to prove that it exists. Race and gender are invented concepts as well, and they have a very real impact on our day-to-day lives.

[1] Shameless plug, I've already written on this subject: http://jasonmbaker.com/how-to-be-creative

[2] http://www.fastcompany.com/1701676/narcissism-and-creativity...

Post reply on HN