211–220 of 292 posts
Stimulating children's brains through conversation && || other means is what allows/makes/(stimulates) the brain to grow and learn.
Signs language is the tool they should be using and writting about. Childrens can comunicate earlier than they can make proper sounds (talk). By teaching sign language early to deaf AND hearing kid, you have a complex language they can use earlier than spoken languages. Check this video of a 2 years old having an engaged conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o8Z2lzS764
My wife is an experienced sign language interpreter and I lost hearing of one ear so we both are in contact with deaf people. We are actively teaching our hearing 8 months old daugther signs. I can already notice how she stares at me when moving my hands around, but this is probably a first time dad thing ;)
On the other hand, cochlear implants create a low definition channel compared to sign language, it's created later, and the surgery it's not easy. I've met plenty of deaf people with they implants permanently turned off. The electrical impulses generated by the implant are a minimal fraction of what a normal ear does. It's still a very rudimentary tech.
I'm not saying parents should not implant their deafs kids. I wouldn't, but if they choose to they shouldn't private the child of early sign language because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, to be pedantic, we aren't descended from apes, just very closely related to them with a common ancestor. Second, is there any evidence that the evolutionary history of intelligence was linear? How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gr…
If you are going to be pedantic, genetically we are not just descended from apes, we are apes. If you look at the evolutionary tree of the apes and monkeys, it makes no sense to consider humans outside the ape group. Chimpanzees and humans are more closely related than Chimpanzees and Gorillas for example. The only reason we consider humans to be descended from rather than being apes, is that we don't look at the evo…
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…
[1] http://www.livescience.com/25431-gene-regulation-homosexuali...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, This question seems kind of confused. But we can say with complete certainty that it's not the case that "one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did" because generations don't happen at any particular…
The most simplistic scenario in which a change could happen in "one generation" is if there is one man today born with a mutated gene that protects him against X, and tomorrow X happens which kills all men in the world except him, leaving him to impregnate many women, and all future generations would be descended from him. Not saying that has ever happened (I've no idea, for all I know it might have but does seem fai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you claiming people are solely the product of their environment? There is substantial scientific evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a deterministic inherited thing (it's clearly not). However I believe there is strong evidence that everyone is born with a unique personality and potential. An "environmental chaos theory" does not do justice to unexplained outliers, those with recognized min…
> Are you claiming people are solely the product of their environment? There is substantial scientific evidence to the contrary. I'm genuinely interested in what/where this is, any links / searches?
I guess poor children hear fewer words because they don't watch much television.
actually this is a question that I had - could mediums like television, or a tablet app make up for the parents not talking ? Or does it need for the child to speak back ?
Some carefully planned educational programs like Sesame Street have shown to be beneficial in older children. Screen time should be minimized though, as it isn't a replacement for interaction.
Does do read the article, it teaches the parent to avoid commands like "put your shoes on" and instead substitute interactive talk like "we are getting ready to go out, what do you need to do to get ready?" That lets the child reply with "shoes" or "coat." It is about interacting with your child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I come from a unique environment that has allowed me to draw some very interesting conclusions. I am from a family of 3 children. Two adopted and one "unexpected" natural birth. One of the three of us has been in prison many times (and we have no other relatives that I know of that have ever been in trouble beyond the occasional speeding/parking ticket). The other of the three of us is a carbon copy of their biologic…
There are many more environmental factors than that, differences in behaviour between classmates, different friends, even the number of siblings are all environmental factors that I think make a difference. You can all go to the same school with the same teachers but if one of you have a teacher on a Monday morning and the other has the same teacher Friday afternoon after teaching a stressful ill-disciplined class, t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Are you claiming people are solely the product of their environment? There is substantial scientific evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a deterministic inherited thing (it's clearly not). However I believe there is strong evidence that everyone is born with a unique personality and potential. An "environmental chaos theory" does not do justice to unexplained outliers, those with recognized min…
The metaphor that comes to mind is this: imagine yourself as a spring, standing upright. In childhood, this spring was held down by a heavy boot. Now that the boot has lifted, what has happened to the spring? Is it back to the original height, or has it stretched even higher?