From: Elizabeth Childs (echilds@linex.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 1999 - 11:04:50 MDT
Some concrete suggestions: there are N number of sounds ever used in any
human language; I think N is about a hundred or so. Anyway, many of
these sounds are used in English, but some are not, and native English
speakers have a great deal of difficulty learning to pronounce these
sounds.
According to one study, if you exposed infants to these non-English
sounds, even without any further exposure,
years later they would be able to pronounce those sounds correctly. A
pretty easy way to help the kid to speak fluent Hindi later in life if
he's interested.
According to many studies, breast feeding may be a significant factor in
later IQ development, although I'm a bit skeptical of these claims,
since it would be hard to properly control a study.
Surprisingly, some studies show that early musical training
substantially enhances ability in math and science later in life. This
study shows that music is even more effective than computer experience:
http://www.amc-music.com/prbrain.htm
I got intrigued and did a little research of my own, I found these
links. I have no idea if the information on here is reliable, but it at
least seemed relevant:
http://www.parenting-baby.com/
http://www.infantelligence.com/
All this aside, it's worth noting that study after study strongly
suggests that 80% of IQ is inherited. I suspect that current techniques
aren't going to be able to affect raw intelligence by much more than
20%. This in no way diminishes the importance of education, which can
have a profound effect on a person's intellectual efficacy; sometimes
you're better off with really good software that runs on a 486, rather
than buggy software that runs on a Cray. My point is that I know of no
established technique that can raise the processor speed by more than
20%.
> How often have we seen massively talented people in any number of fields
> whose explanation for their incredible abilities begins with something like
> "they started up on this even before they learned to walk."(This sentence
> should end with a question mark, but I'm not sure where to put it?) Ever
> notice the breathtaking intensity of focus and attention of children at
> that stage? Point number one: start 'em young, VERY young.
I suspect that in the vast majority if not all of these cases, the
reason the kid was so strongly attracted to the activity in question is
_because_ he was a prodigy, rather than that the skills developed
through early childhood intervention.
This is not to say there's anything wrong with giving kids the option of
trying advanced activities at an early age, without pressuring them. It
sounds like that gymnastics class was very well matched for that kid.
But I think it's important to recognize that children do have real
limitations of ability, and pushing too hard on them is going to be
painful for the child.
Which brings us back to a point made by others; kids know what they're
interested in, and how fast they want to go. Harnessing that is going
to be the most powerful thing you can do.
> I also think of the stories of William Randolph Hearst and Orson Wells.
> They were (1) doted on (lots and lots of emotional stroking), (2) never
> told "no", and (3) told repeatedly (at least in the case of Oson Wells)
> that they were "geniuses". What strikes me here--concerning specifically
I was told that there was a study done on young Nobel prize winners that
showed that they fell into two camps; half of them went on to have rich
scientific careers, making several discoveries that could have qualified
for the prize. The other half were ruined by it, and never being able
to top their early work, never produce anything meaningful again.
The very likely case is that any given child is not a genius, in which
case telling him that he's a genius will only set him up to feel like
anything he accomplishes will not be enough. Even child prodigies often
find that the extraordinary degree of their ability fades in adulthood.
If the child really does have extraordinary talents, it seems
appropriate to let him know. But there is a danger to emphasizing these
abilities too much. Even if the parents intend otherwise, a child is
likely to develop two misconceptions - first, that his self worth should
be dependent on his intelligence, and
secondly, that he is fundamentally different than other people, and
better.
What I would do if I had a really brilliant child is to acknowledge that
the child was exceptionally intelligent, tell the child that it's a
great gift and he's very lucky to have it. That it is true that
sometimes he will understand things that other people won't, even
adults. That he may be able to achieve things that have never been done
before. But that having great ability with abstract thinking does not
automatically translate into having great ability with the human
problems of life - emotional resilience, compassion, courage,
independence, integrity - and that on the human problems of life, even a
retarded person might have something to teach him.
To any child, I would emphasize that human beings, in general, have
great capacity, much greater capacity than is fully utilized, and that
the child should dream big, not because he's a genius and has special
talents, but because he's a person and his dreams are powerful.
A very funny piece on Suck about hearing "You're so smart!" at an
impressionable age:
http://www.suck.com/daily/98/03/25/
> As smarter folks than me have observed, our culture has created an
> educational system to suit its commercial and idealogical requirements.
> (Have you ever noticed that the row-and-column-everyone-facing-front
> arrangement of chairs in a classrom is the only geometry that prevents all
> other human contact than with the person at the front of the room?)
_Separating School And State_ by Sheldon Richmond has some devastating
quotes from the people who founded the US public school system; their
explicit goal was to train factory workers, and there are a lot of
quotes about squelching individuality. I believe it's in that book
where I saw the study that showed that literacy rates in the city
surveyed (Pittsburgh?) have dropped substantially in the 100 years since
public schooling was introduced. (dang, why don't I have this book
anymore? Sorry to not have the actual numbers.)
I would also note that the public school system was initially opposed by
most people; it was not a natural outgrowth of our culture, but the work
of a small group of people who were able to get the right bills passed.
Like so many unfortunate goverment projects, people can now no longer
imagine its absence.
-
In the future, ice cream will come right out of the cow.
Elizabeth Childs
echilds@linex.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:39 MST