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

281–290 of 292 posts

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

#281

Post by rational_indian »

jpwagner wrote: post #198
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh bull. We know intelligence has some genetic component, or else a sufficiently trained monkey would do calculus. We just don't entirely know what "intelligence" is well enough to measure its precise heritability.

Intelligence is not a scalar. This article should make you rethink your example: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelli...

>Intelligence is not a scalar.

It doesn't have to be. But it does vary from person to person (even if non linearly). What would you say affects the intelligence of people with mental retardation?

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

#283

Post by david927 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #230
david927 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't, "Is there intelligence?" The question is "What is intelligence in terms of a definition?" You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty". That's fine. Beauty exists. But aren't you almost admitting that it is a quality and therefore subject to what evaluates it? In other words, if 5 people call someone beautiful or ugly, are they beautiful?…

> You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty". That's not it. 1. Imagine that we have a system we're happy with for quantifying people's beauty. 2. Imagine that we discover that, in a sample population of 100,000 or so, higher beauty predicts lower willingness to wait in line, lower frisbee golf scores, and redder tablecloths in the home. The idea here is th…

Thanks for taking the time to write that! You presented your ideas extremely well. (And I love this kind of debate.)

So I'll accept both premises. And for premise 1, let's imagine the system we use to quantify beauty measures pronouncement of cheekbones and thickness of lips, etc. Premise 2 remains untouched. Here's the problem: Angelina Jolie would score well, but so would Jocelyn Wildenstein (Google image search that), and Emma Watson would score poorly. We would come to wrong individual conclusions based on correlations made from larger sample sizes. In fact, Jocelyn Wildenstein might come away with the title of "the most beautiful person ever." (And if you think I'm joking, listen to any interview with a man named Chris Langan.)

Since intelligence is qualitative, like beauty or flavors of ice cream, it's about the mix of ingredients. It's about "character". So that while you can make good correlations on large sample sizes, it's that individual mix that defines "beauty", "tasty", etc. Alan Kay was wrong: point of view isn't worth 80 IQ points -- 80 IQ points is worth a better point of view. That point of view is the end result, the character that determines your intelligence.

Again, the most beautiful woman, say, may not have the combined biggest lips and highest cheekbones, but an especially good mix. If you look at Einstein and every other great thinker, the people we consider the smartest, they won't have the highest IQ scores, but they had the best intellectual character.

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

#284

Post by baq »

Theodores wrote: post #140
baq wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my 15-month daughter runs to her high chair when she's hungry. sometimes she skips the chair and runs directly to the fridge. i don't think it's unusual, i hear the same things from my friends. one related anectode: my boss' 3-yo son said to him, 'dad, i'm not stupid, i'm just small' :)

What took your daughter so long? Quite a few pets sit by their kitchen feeding bowls when they get hungry. They learn to do this within a lot less time than 15 months.

didn't say she just started doing that, just that she's 15 months. she was doing this for at least a couple of months now.

children really grow faster than adults comprehend...

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

#286

Post by MarkMc »

JackFr wrote: post #210
a-priori wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another trait that's important for success in life is deferred gratification , or the ability to give up a small immediate reward for a larger reward in the future. That trait, when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things later in life, including academic success and physical health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

The study I assume you are basing your statement that '[delayed gratification] when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things' has largely been debunked. When the poverty level of the children tested is factored out, the effect disappears. It seems what is really being shown is the rational basis in children to discount promises made by adults for future rewards, when in their experience a…

I don't think either of those two links refute the idea that "delayed gratification when measured in children, is correlated with all sorts of positive things".

From The Daily Beast article: "Eigsti does not feel her data disproves Mischel—he was actually a co-author on her paper, and she thinks her work is consistent."

The Priconomics article says: "The original marshmallow experiment concluded that the children's ability to wait for a second treat indicated an innate ability to exhibit self control". But nothing I've read indicates that Mischel believed the ability to delay gratification was innate. In fact, most of his previous research indicated that such an ability was strongly influenced by environmental factors.

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

#287

Post by 6d0debc071 »

rafcavallaro wrote: post #263
6d0debc071 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name. Then how did they get named in the first place?

By other cultures. Example: show a set of color swatches all identical blue with one bluish green. Ask participants to indicate the exception. Speakers of languages with a blue-green distinction get it right essentially instantly (< 1 second); native speakers of languages without a blue-green distinction can take as much as 30 seconds and actually get it wrong (I.e., indicate one of the identical blue swatches)

How did the other cultures name them in the first place? Can't be turtles cultures all the way down the stack.

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

#288

Post by gwern »

lutusp wrote: post #280
gwern wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics. Here, since you apparently are completely inept and mind-killed: in Google, punch in 'Gould fraud'. The very first link is to a Nature.com page: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_f...

> And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics. The basics of IQ testing and its many misuses? Gould didn't invent this topic, and he doesn't define it. You remarks about Gould and IQ testing remind me of the creationists who think evolution was Darwin's private fantasy. If you take away Gould entirely, you still have any number of terrible examples of misuse of IQ testing for rac…

That's pretty big talk from a dude who couldn't find the first link in Google, and tried to wave off any discussion of Gould's fraud as equivalent to all the crackpots talking about Einstein.

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

#289

Post by PeterisP »

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…

The original article also advocates facilitating the child to respond in detail, not simply monologues by a parent. I wouldn't call it de-emphasising speaking; the article describes pretty much the same actions as you do, but labels it 'emphasising', not 'de-emphasising'.

Sure, you need to hold your tongue often to provoke more dialogue (not finish the kids sentences instead of him/her, etc); but in the end it still means much more talking than the 'default' amount.

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

#290

Post by thaumasiotes »

david927 wrote: post #283
thaumasiotes wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying that if many people find you beautiful, there's a quality driving that, and it's "beauty". That's not it. 1. Imagine that we have a system we're happy with for quantifying people's beauty. 2. Imagine that we discover that, in a sample population of 100,000 or so, higher beauty predicts lower willingness to wait in line, lower frisbee golf scores, and redder tablecloths in the home. The idea here is th…

Thanks for taking the time to write that! You presented your ideas extremely well. (And I love this kind of debate.) So I'll accept both premises. And for premise 1, let's imagine the system we use to quantify beauty measures pronouncement of cheekbones and thickness of lips, etc. Premise 2 remains untouched. Here's the problem: Angelina Jolie would score well, but so would Jocelyn Wildenstein (Google image search th…

You asked for the definition. That is the definition. Calling it a "debate" is the kind of thing that leads Kudzu_Bob to assume that questions are asked in bad faith. Whether you're happy with it is a separate question, which you can investigate yourself; there's an extensive literature on the various life consequences of high measured IQ.
Post reply on HN