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

Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#21

Post by yters »

The problem is much bigger than merely children's toys. In general, our society is progressively less imaginative, and merely consuming what we've inherited from our past. This is why a lot of entertainment is based around destruction: cutting humor, violent action/horror films, most video games, pop music (angry rock, gangsta rap).

The hacker community has an advantage here, since we are so used to using our minds. Games like nethack are entirely dependent upon the user being logical and having a good imagination.

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#23

Post by gojomo »

curi wrote: post #19
gojomo wrote: post #16

Awful headline. One of multiple exercises in a 1940s test of 'self-regulation' involved standing still. Children in 2001 don't obediently stand still as well. Separately, the article notes (without referencing source) that "good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ". The custom headline going from 'standing' to 'school success' is tenuous extrapolation that, if the reporter…

It is not a bad headline, it is an opinionated headline (based on text from the article). I understand that you disagree with my point of view. Please understand that I disagree with yours, too. The "tangential direction" you are complaining about is the reason I posted the article. I would not have posted it otherwise. You should be glad that people who disagree can still be helpful each other, rather than complaini…

In my experience, people who disagree can best cooperate if they emphasize accuracy in their statements -- thus quickly finding the areas of agreement and disagreement.

That you thought the statement "good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ" was the most important part of the article is a valid opinion I can respect. That you found the standing-still experiments an interesting way to measure child self-regulation is also a valid opinion I respect.

It is the pairing of the two opinions into the unsupported statement "Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ", and then the promotion of that dubious statement to the key position of headline, that I find objectionable.

Alternate approaches I wouldn't have objected to:

* contribute article with original headline, but post a first comment with "I found it interesting that the article suggests ability to stand still for longer may predict executive function, and thus school success, better than IQ."

* contribute article with original headline plus appended pot-stirring question: "Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills (Does standing-still predict success better than IQ?)

Or, if HN were to someday allow a comment-with-submission or subhead-with-submission, that would be a great place for highlighting an opinionated takeaway from deep in the article, even though the article's main thrust is something else.

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#24

Post by foonamefoo »

skmurphy wrote: post #20

This is a great article. Key paragraphs for me: It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control…

I don't see all the mystery: people no longer beat their kids to the extent that they did 60 years ago. Maybe if they made the request as part of a game instead of as an order from an adult there would be more validity (but you can't go back in time to the '40s to make them change the experiment as well).

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#25

Post by curi »

gojomo wrote: post #23
curi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a bad headline, it is an opinionated headline (based on text from the article). I understand that you disagree with my point of view. Please understand that I disagree with yours, too. The "tangential direction" you are complaining about is the reason I posted the article. I would not have posted it otherwise. You should be glad that people who disagree can still be helpful each other, rather than complaini…

In my experience, people who disagree can best cooperate if they emphasize accuracy in their statements -- thus quickly finding the areas of agreement and disagreement. That you thought the statement "good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ" was the most important part of the article is a valid opinion I can respect. That you found the standing-still experiments an interes…

The original headline is disagreeable to me. Most of the content of the article is disagreeable to me. It is not a neutral article. There is no simple neutral way to post it.

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#26

Post by pohart »

curi wrote: post #25
gojomo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people who disagree can best cooperate if they emphasize accuracy in their statements -- thus quickly finding the areas of agreement and disagreement. That you thought the statement "good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ" was the most important part of the article is a valid opinion I can respect. That you found the standing-still experiments an interes…

The original headline is disagreeable to me. Most of the content of the article is disagreeable to me. It is not a neutral article. There is no simple neutral way to post it.

This is a fair point. I certainly agree with what the article is saying, but the presentation is one-sided. There is no mention of alternative explanations for the decline in ability to self-regulate, or wether standing still is measuring something other than self-regulation. As well, the headline is an accurate condensation of the research findings. It does not tell us the important part of the article, but it does tell us the only part that I am most willing to believe without reading the original study.

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#27

Post by lackbeard »

whacked_new wrote: post #17
ephextom wrote: post #10

I've had a bit of insight into this, through some exposure to a program that attempts to treat ADHD, Aspergers and Dyslexia. The program is based on the premise that these conditions are caused by an underdeveloped cerebellum, and provides a program of exercises that are specifically designed to develop this part of the brain. One of the tests they do in diagnosis and progress assessment is a basic "standing still" t…

I have a related story. During a visit to a doctor when I was a kid, the doctor found me unruly, noisy, and over-active. Being a friend of my parents, he flatly and frankly told them, and in front of me, that I "cannot sit still" and suggested they enroll me into a Go classroom, which they promptly did. After a few months I visited him again, and he said, again in everyone's presence, that I was "much better." I was…

What is a "Go classroom". A place where they teach the boardgame Go?

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#28

Post by skmurphy »

foonamefoo wrote: post #24
skmurphy wrote: post #20

This is a great article. Key paragraphs for me: It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control…

I don't see all the mystery: people no longer beat their kids to the extent that they did 60 years ago. Maybe if they made the request as part of a game instead of as an order from an adult there would be more validity (but you can't go back in time to the '40s to make them change the experiment as well).

I am not sure that's it. I wasn't beaten as a child, nor are my children. However, I had much much more unstructured play "in the neighborhood" than my children do. Almost any activity is mediated by adults today. Other parents, primarily fathers, have remarked on this in the last five to ten years when we compare how we organized our time when we were between five and fifteen years old with how our children's time is organized and managed for them. For the most part we didn't have adult umpires or coaches as children, we had to work out situations for ourselves. Sometimes a game would break up, but over time we learned to compromise in ways that seem less common with adult coaches and adult referees who are often more committed to "winning" than the children involved. We may be getting off topic for "Hacker News" but unstructured play seems to be a key component to fostering self-control and creativity is my take-away.

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#29

Post by whacked_new »

lackbeard wrote: post #27
whacked_new wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a related story. During a visit to a doctor when I was a kid, the doctor found me unruly, noisy, and over-active. Being a friend of my parents, he flatly and frankly told them, and in front of me, that I "cannot sit still" and suggested they enroll me into a Go classroom, which they promptly did. After a few months I visited him again, and he said, again in everyone's presence, that I was "much better." I was…

What is a "Go classroom". A place where they teach the boardgame Go?

Yeah

Re: Standing Still Predicts School Success Better Than IQ

#30

Post by whacked_new »

dood wrote: post #5
curi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part I put in the headline is what I thought was most interesting. Most of the rest seemed to consist of saying that lack of obedience in modern children indicates something is wrong with them. And finding things to blame this on, like toys. I don't think the issue was self -discipline because the example of how they studied it was about whether the children would stand still when someone else told them to.

I think you missed the most interesting aspect, not about obedience or toys specifically, but that attempting to control, regulate and educate children has severely hampered their ability to control, regulate and educate themselves. "Essentially, because children's play is so focused on lessons and leagues, and because kids' toys increasingly inhibit imaginative play, kids aren't getting a chance to practice policing…

It seems rather unfair that you got upmodded so much, and curi's post 2 layers above got downmodded below 0. curi states a personal opinion, which is valid as one.

You say curi missed the most interesting aspect -- from your POV (and obviously shared by others). I disagree with you about what is the most interesting aspect, but I don't think your point is uninteresting, but neither would I think you missed the "most interesting aspect." I think the "most interesting" is merely the useful idea that "developing self-regulation is beneficial and important."

While there is really nothing wrong about the state of your, and curi's scores, and how much people agree with either of you, this points system makes it look like, at a glance, that something was wrong about curi's post, and yours was, relatively, +18 correct. This is a negative side effect of this point system, which I don't think most people keep in mind when voting.

Post reply on HN