Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.com

61–70 of 292 posts

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

#61
post #21

My parents like to tell the storiy of my childhood. Basically, I used to think I was an adult (despite being 5) and talk to everyone. The best part, is that I _was_ treated like an adult, and am pretty intelligent these days as well :) More importantly, it gave me confidence from an early age. That's the best gift I think a child can be given, especially one that is into "fringe" pursuits.

I cringed when I read you saying 'am pretty intelligent these days' Einstein, Euler, Reimann realized that the subjects and challenges were truly important, not their intelligence. Solve life, don't inflate self.

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

#62
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how people are happy to say genetics plays a hand in the limits of human abilities, but when it comes to talk about intelligence, there are so many people in denial. Perhaps it is just that you can't sell as many self help books if a lot of our brain's wiring is preordained.

Intelligence is a mixture of upbringing and genetics. If you're raised by a pack of wolves in the woods, you'll probably be rock dumb by all measures, regardless of your DNA.

If a wolf is raised by humans, how much will that improve its IQ score?

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

#63

Solid parenting advice, #1 talk to your children even when they cannot talk, #2 read new books to your children every week. You can always re-read favorites but just keep the new books coming. And then combine #1 and #2 and talk to your children about the books you read. There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name.…

> There is an excellent Radiolab podcast on "Colors" [1] which has (for me) the fairly stunning revelation that you can't see a color you can't name. [emphasis added]

Interesting idea, but untestable, therefore unscientific. Do you see why? A color we can't name isn't open to systematic investigation. If we try to get around this by asking a subject to compare the "unseen" color to a color patch, we're only given the "unseeable" color a name by proxy.

This kind of claim is very commonly made by people who don't understand science.

> People seem to need words to organize their thoughts and reason about things they see or read.

This argues that animals lacking language also lack the ability to think. Copious evidence disproves this idea. Video of a raven using tools to achieve a purpose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Z6Mvjd9w0

> The more words you give them, the better able they are to reason.

The better able to reason with words. This is self-referential in the extreme.

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

#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 the class was being told about rocket firecracker that light Indian skies during the Diwali festival and our son was explaining to her why a rocket goes up ("it burns gunpowder"), or why it stops after a while ("the gunpowder runs out") and then why it falls back to earth ("gravity"). The rest of his class was more fascinated with the talk about firecrackers.

Her nuanced point was that our son tends to get ahead of ideas and actions by engaging in a to-and-fro conversation about the logic/explanation behind them, thus at times preventing him from enjoying or taking in the idea or action itself or talking with other kids his age.

One of her suggestions was to "explain less" and let our son figure out things on his own (easier said than done, because he's extremely inquisitive and persistent).

The larger point I'm trying to make is that high vocabulary can also act as a barrier in kids engaging with others their age. The article also hints at it, in a manner:

> Newell is proud that her daughter can spell her first and last names, recite her address and phone number, recognize and spell colors, and count to 200. She’s also frustrated that more of Alona’s peers can’t do the same.

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

#65

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…

I don't know if it really qualifies as a nitpick to directly contradict the article's title.

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

#66
post #48
post #27

I am disappointed when I hear the term "socio-economic factors" in discussions of education. First, as if "economic" wasn't enough you add in "socio" to create a term that means "factors coming from every part of a person's life". Of course there are socio-economic factors. But I dislike it particularly because often it feels like a statement: we don't know what the causes are (which is why we make the weakest possib…

Some of the best hackers &| hustlers I know come from average to slightly-below average backgrounds. The biggest challenge for anyone, given any background, is what they tell themselves they can't do. In addition to talking, it's important that the parent is a decent human-being. An awful person interacting with a kid probably does more harm than good. I don't think there's much correlation with decency and socioecon…

When you say that some of the best hacker and hustlers that you know come from unimpressive backgrounds, does "some" mean "most" or "a few" or "hardly any"?

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

#67
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call "denial", I call reasonable doubt. And by that, I mean we don't have any concrete way to measure intelligence potential/capacity in the same way we can measure 12 inches. We know what 12 inches mean, but can anyone tell me what it means to be smart? What subjects do I need to learn to qualify? And to what level of detail? Why do we conclude Stephen Hawkins is smart? Who is an example of someone that isn…

We do have concrete ways to measure intelligence, and have had them for over a hundred years. The literature on this subject is quite extensive.

We do not. Are there answers to the questions I presented? You can't observe any exact thing and say "Right there! This person is exactly 49 intelliunits smart". IQ tests may give you an idea of one point of view of a measurement of intelligent is, but it is certainly not concrete like 12 inches is. Not concrete like we know 2 hydrogens & one oxygen is water. I think our obsession that everything must be measurable & categorized fails when it comes to the human mind. We are more than the sum of our measurable parts... for now. You can look at a car engine specification and know exactly the maximum speed given optimum conditions and assuming no mechanical failures. There's no such measurement for the human brain. You cannot know what my top performance is. At the absolute best, you can have a ball-park guess. You could end up being right or being way off.

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

#68
post #49
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…

How did the researchers determine causation? What if there is simply a gene for strong language which is responsible both for the parents' financial success and the child's academic success, and the extra words were simply a by product?

[deleted]

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always believed smart (developed capability) is taught, and genius (typically narrow high level mental capability) is born. And that all people at birth, except the relative few born with mental handicaps, are capable of being smart. A 100 to 115 IQ maxed out on potential and perspiration will get you very far in life.

A 100 to 115 IQ maxed out on potential will get you very far in life, but not as far as a 130 to 145 IQ maxed out on potential will.

Not really. There's an upper limit to the survival value of intelligence. Not to oversimplify, but that limit is reached when the person says, "What? I should add to the world's problems by having children?"

In all seriousness, the fact that the average I.Q. is located where it is, tells us that's the outcome natural selection blindly chose. And natural selection is always right.

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

#70
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have concrete ways to measure intelligence, and have had them for over a hundred years. The literature on this subject is quite extensive.

We do not. Are there answers to the questions I presented? You can't observe any exact thing and say " Right there! This person is exactly 49 intelliunits smart ". IQ tests may give you an idea of one point of view of a measurement of intelligent is, but it is certainly not concrete like 12 inches is. Not concrete like we know 2 hydrogens & one oxygen is water. I think our obsession that everything must be measurable…

Human personality contains any number of traits that can be measured. To pretend that pyschometrics does not exist is the equivalent of refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
Post reply on HN