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

Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#171

Post by r0h1n »

prutschman wrote: post #139
r0h1n wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure whether you meant that sarcastically. If you did, I'm not at all a supporter of segregated schooling of any kind, be it class, 'abilities' or even neighbourhoods. There's value in kids growing up in a heterogeneous and diverse environment, and my comment was only meant to highlight how having an advanced vocabulary can sometimes hinder that.

Do you feel the same way about segregating individual classes by age? Having an advanced vocabulary is much less of an impediment if you're in a heterogenous and diverse environment which includes a diversity of ages.

Fundamentally, yes. But practically, I can appreciate schools who find it the least-worst filter to group children into classrooms. Our son's school has weekly mixed-age sessions, but I don't think they can become the norm.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#172

Post by r0h1n »

jorleif wrote: post #117
r0h1n wrote: post #64

Father of a 3.5 year old brought up using tons of "targeted talking" here: our son has a vocabulary and logical comprehension skills that are significantly beyond his peer group. As a result I'd noticed in the past that he prefers engaging with other adults in conversation over kids his age. Yesterday was his first PTA meeting and the feedback from his teacher seemed to confirm it too. She narrated an incident when t…

Could the teachers statement be rephrased in terms that the kid is developing analytical skills so quickly that they are dominating over the more "experiential" part of socializing with others? It seems that this kind of thing persists into adulthood, because I notice that it is hard to experience and analyze at the same time. For example, it is hard to read a book to experience the story and analyze the narrative st…

That's very well put and I tend to agree with it.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#173

Post by mathattack »

aptwebapps wrote: post #40
electrograv wrote: post #30

Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor. To provide just one example (out of many, I'm s…

This is a useless nitpick. It's not a scientific treatise, it's a public service message to try to change people's behavior. I don't believe for a second that the doctor believes that intelligence has no inherited component whatsoever. She is dealing with a problem in the real world using what tools she has at her disposal. Edit: Responding jamesaguilar's and true_religion's point about the title. Yes, that's true. I…

Exactly. This is one determinant of intelligence that we can impact, but it's not the sole determinant of intelligence.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#174

Post by ronaldx »

waveman2 wrote: post #101
Alex3917 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C.f. the cited book by Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences In The Everyday Experiences of Young American Children. "The more parents talked to their children, the faster the children's vocabularies were growing and the higher children's IQ test scores at age 3 and later. [...] [By age 4], an average child in a professional family would have the accumulated experience with almost 45 million words, an average child i…

The studies seem to be confusing causation and correlation. They seem to assuming that there must be an environmental cause for the differences in people's IQs. This may seem like a stupid assumption to make, but a lot of people in the social sciences take this as a given, even though the weight of evidence is strongly against it. Perhaps I have missed something, but I would expect that, if they did not have ideologi…

> twins reared separately

This is the gold-standard for testing genetic association, yes, but it is increasingly considered unethical. And is not perfect - twins are still likely to be placed in similar homes (typically both in foster homes, after all), which likely results in an overestimate of the genetic effect.

Modern statistics is about handling the data that is available: present-day researchers cannot rely on a statistically perfect study which would have to be generational and eugenic in scope.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#175

Post by Alex3917 »

bjterry wrote: post #106
Alex3917 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet another story on parent-child correlations that dares not mention the g-word Except for that the Hart & Risley study measured the impact of genetics, and found it to be insignificant. Maybe Pinker should try actually reading the studies he's criticizing instead of just reading about them in the paper.

If I am understanding your argument correctly in context, based on what you quoted, you are saying that the impact of genetics on g was found to be insignificant in the Hart & Risley study. That objectively seems not to be the case. First, the measurement outcome of the study was language use. They didn't attempt to measure IQ or g except when the children were 3. As far as I can tell from references, without access…

The study looked at the impact of genetics on language acquisition, and found that at most the contribution of IQ to language acquisition could only be a few percent. They were not really looking at the impact of genetics on IQ, although I think this is mentioned at one point and they say genetics plays a larger part here.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#176

Post by baldfat »

xenophanes wrote: post #116
electrograv wrote: post #30

Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor. To provide just one example (out of many, I'm s…

You claim to "demonstrate that it's a lot more complex than just environmental factors". But the correct conclusion from what you said is that you demonstrated that it's a lot more complex than just the environmental factors that you thought of. You seem to be concluding genetic factors ("always had an intrinsic motivation"). But "not all environment" does not imply "some genetics", that is a false alternative. There…

So individually we see exceptions (Which could be seen differently if studied more) In vast numbers we seen factors.

Apples vs Oranges = Looking at Millions vs Individual.

I am a teacher in a city. My students are 100% below poverty line. My student under perform dramatically for their age when they walk through our doors. BUT there are exceptions. You are possibly one exception. BUT when you look at millions of poor vs millions of upper class there is a HUGE difference.

In your line of thought: Poor people are poor due mainly to genetics. I can't believe that for a second due to how many million of poor in US. My children when they leave the school after one or two years are ahead of their peers who do not come to our school.

My two cents.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#177

Post by alphydan »

electrograv wrote: post #30

Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor. To provide just one example (out of many, I'm s…

The article gives an 'example' where the child of the janitor is 'smarter' than the one of the doctor or college student.

So the question is, did your parents talk to you? (not where your parents astrophysicists?)

>> “Now I know I can just have a regular conversation with her,” Adams said. “Just ask her about her day, even if I can’t understand half of it.”

If your parents mostly ignored you, plugged you in the TV, didn't ask you open questions and left you to yourself since a very early age then you may be an exception. (of course your memories from 1 - 5 may not be all that accurate either. What do your parents say about talking to you and making you talk?)

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#178

Post by ZeroGravitas »

electrograv wrote: post #30

Saying "Children aren't born smart" is equivalent to saying "Intelligence is determined entirely by one's environment", if I understand the claim correctly. While I'm sure talking to ones children contributes in a massively positive way to their IQ, I think it's extremely inaccurate and ignorant to the existence of real-world outliers to claim that it's the only factor. To provide just one example (out of many, I'm s…

Haven't you just excluded nurture ("can't come up with a single environmental influence that explains this") and nature ("I'm definitely the only one like this from my family, a clear outlier")?

If you didn't get if from your family via genes, and you didn't get it from the environment, where else is left? Everyone else seems to be reading your comment as pro-genetics, but given the quote above, I can't see that.

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#179

Post by pitt1980 »

tezza wrote: post #163
pg wrote: post #5

I don't know whether this is true, but it feels true, and I've been operating as if it were.

I also do not know if this is true. It seems safe to presume that it is at least a mild benefit because it is cheap and easy to do. If it were more costly in terms of child aide resourcing, then we'd have to look a lot closer at whether we should divert resources to speak-to-the-child programs. --- Some schooling like Steiner education actively de-emphasises speaking to your children until 6+. Steiner teachers would…

that seems to jive well with the article about not talking to your kid in directives:

"In low-income households, parents commonly speak to their children in simple commands, and participant Aneisha Newell said the week on directives was particularly significant to her. “Instead of saying, ‘go put on your shoes,’ I can say, ‘All right, it’s time to go. What else do you need? … That gives my child the chance to respond, and say, ‘shoes,’ ” said Newell, 25, who has a 4-year-old daughter and a 10-month-old son and works for a company providing recess supervision and after-school activities in Chicago Public Schools.

Newell said many of her friends and relatives think she’s crazy for talking to her daughter as if she’s an adult. “I can quote this: ‘Neisha, no one wants to sit and talk to the kids like they understand’ That’s basically the response I get."

(I hate that such a thought provoking article couldn't get a better discussion than a college freshman debate over nature v nurture)

in my experience that's one of the best take aways from the articles,

I find even really educated parents tend to give alot of commands to their kids, I would recommend mixing that up

my daughter just entered the 'why' stage,

the other day, I flipped it around and for 10 or so minutes, even thing she would ask say, I would ask her 'why?'

it was really facinating

I think it ended with:

"because I am a big girl"

"why"

"because I pee on the potty"

"ha ha, yeah I guess so"

----------------------------------

second thought

I've often heard that learning a second language forces you to relearn the basics of the english language

similarly, I think that putting thought in how to comminicate with little kids forces you how to relearn communication skills with all people

book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/038057000...

one of the big take aways from that book was not to invalidate your kids feelings, even if it seems silly or stupid to you

I find that to be a really useful comminication tip with adults too

and one the most people don't do a very good job with

Re: Children aren't born smart. They're made smart by conversation

#180

Post by drcode »

pg wrote: post #5

I don't know whether this is true, but it feels true, and I've been operating as if it were.

I feel like every time a science article gets attention just because it "feels true" and which is based on just another retrospective cohort study (which can't untangle causation) it sends the wrong message to the public about what real substantive scientific research is like/needs to be like.
Post reply on HN