todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/13/85)
Perhaps other parents on the net would care to contribute to this discussion. > > ... If you have a kid someday, try to ignore your preconceptions > > and realize that kids are more intelligent than adults and time > ------------------------------------- > > spent with parents is what kids nowadays don't get enough of. > > > > -todd jones > > I hope the underlined clause is nothing worse than careless typing -- > perhaps you meant to say "...than adults realize" or some such? If not, > you will perhaps be so kind as to explain what you do mean? > > Gary Samuelson I guess you *don't* have children, Mr. Samuelson. Children have more advanced imaginations, extremely vivid memories, the ability to learn, the ability to look at situations objectively ALL in excess to the same abilities of adults. Sure, you can argue that children are endowed with some sort of instinctual knowledge, but that knowledge must be general to the point of total vagueness in order to explain infant adaptibility. Just because my four year old can't explain the unified field theory or even read complete sentences doesn't mean you are smarter. Let me put it this way: Let's take Mr. Samuelson off of the planet earth and place him in a place that has no resemblance to earth, the laws of physics have no application here, the other lifeforms make bizzare sounds and gestures, etc... Do you think that in 3 years you could communicate your wishes, make sense of your environment, and analyze events in roughly the same manner as your alien peers? I doubt it. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd. "The intelligence displayed by children is quite humbling."
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/16/85)
> Perhaps other parents on the net would care to contribute to > this discussion. > > > ... If you have a kid someday, try to ignore your preconceptions > > > and realize that kids are more intelligent than adults and time > > ------------------------------------- > > > spent with parents is what kids nowadays don't get enough of. Let me say, to begin with, that trying to ignore preconceptions is a good idea, and that I agree that time spent with parents is what kids nowadays don't get enough of. Let me also say that this discussion already appears to be headed towards a nonproductive argument, namely, the definition and measurement of intelligence, and that I would regret that happening. I will also add that my daughter (almost 3 years old) is obviously exceptionally intelligent, in my own unbiased opinion, of course. > > I hope the underlined clause is nothing worse than careless typing -- > > perhaps you meant to say "...than adults realize" or some such? If not, > > you will perhaps be so kind as to explain what you do mean? > I guess you *don't* have children, Mr. Samuelson. You guess wrong, sir. > Children have more advanced imaginations, extremely vivid memories, > the ability to learn, the ability to look at situations objectively > ALL in excess to the same abilities of adults. > Sure, you can argue that children are endowed with some sort of > instinctual knowledge... (I would not argue any such thing.) > ...but that knowledge must be general to the > point of total vagueness in order to explain infant adaptibility. This is where the nonproductive arguments could start. All of the above abilities are difficult to define, let alone measure. I suspect that in attempts to measure these abilities, the tests used with adults are not the same as those used with children, making comparisons triply difficult. On the other hand, I believe that these abilities in a lot of adults have atrophied through disuse -- perhaps that explains your perception that children are more intelligent. > Just because my four year old can't explain the unified field > theory or even read complete sentences doesn't mean you are > smarter. What does it mean? (Note: I can't explain the unified field theory, either.) > Let me put it this way: > Let's take Mr. Samuelson off of the planet earth... (Do I hear a second? :-) > ...and place him > in a place that has no resemblance to earth, the laws of physics > have no application here... Unfortunately, I would die almost instantly, since my body holds together partially because of the laws of physics. > ...the other lifeforms make bizzare sounds > and gestures, etc... > Do you think that in 3 years you could communicate your wishes, > make sense of your environment, and analyze events in roughly > the same manner as your alien peers? I doubt it. That would be an interesting experiment; but you don't think I would pass the test (projection of your own self-image?) and I think I would do at least as well there as a typical 3-year-old does here (I even think you would). Unfortunately, we have no way to put your hypothesis to the test, so your claim remains unsubstantiated. On the other hand, it occurs to me that introducing someone to the net is similar to the scenario you propose, and I think I've done fairly well, with a couple of notable exceptions. > "The intelligence displayed by children is quite humbling." That's true. Gary Samuelson
hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) (09/17/85)
Not only that, the child also has a much greater ability to become several feet taller!
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/18/85)
Concession: Okay, okay, I've received quite a lot of flak regarding my statement that kids are more intelligent than kids. It is comparing apples and oranges; besides, intelligence is an elusive commodity to measure. I was rather incensed by a posting that questioned the ability of a mere child to order food from a restaurant menu. Restating of Position: I am hopeful that this will clear up my position. Intelligence is an interaction of many mental faculties that result in some ability to aquire and apply knowledge. I believe that the mental abilities of children and adults are (to crudely generalize) considerably different. While adults possess a wealth of information gathered throughout their years, children are endowed with an innate curiosity and structuring ability that, metamorphoses as an individual matures. Language: It is accepted that language acquision is much more acute at certain, younger ages. Feral children introduced to language and customs never catch up to their cultured peers. Past a certain age (somewhere in the preteens) the acquision of a second language is more difficult, and nearly always results in an accent for that second language. Creativity: It is also accepted (with more counterexamples than the above observation, however) that creativity is hightened earlier in life and drops off as an individual reaches middle age. Though history abounds with counterexamples, there is a rough correlation between youth and creativity. E.G., Einstein, Edison, Freud. Another point to consider when evaluating counterexamples is that individuals may still be producing works in their later years, although they often employ techniques developed during their "creative years." E.G., Picasso, Dostoyevsky. The typical corp- orate scenario is and individual moving to management once they lose their creative impetus. Closing: I'm sure I have succeeded in p*ssing off a lot of you who will respond, "I'm XX years old and I'm more creative than ever!" Maybe. But I still insist, the intelligence of children is quite humbling. I welcome all opinions, dissenting and supportive, on this topic. ||||||| ||^ ^|| { O-O } Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | o | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/23/85)
> > > > ... If you have a kid someday, try to ignore your preconceptions > > > > and realize that kids are more intelligent than adults and time > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > I hope the underlined clause is nothing worse than careless typing -- > > > perhaps you meant to say "...than adults realize" or some such? If not, > > > you will perhaps be so kind as to explain what you do mean? > > > I guess you *don't* have children, Mr. Samuelson. > > You guess wrong, sir. > > > > Sure, you can argue that children are endowed with some sort of > > instinctual knowledge... > > (I would not argue any such thing.) > > What does it mean? (Note: I can't explain the unified field > theory, either.) > > > Let me put it this way: > > Let's take Mr. Samuelson off of the planet earth... [a claim that a child would do better] > > That would be an interesting experiment; but you don't think I would > pass the test (projection of your own self-image?) and I think I > would do at least as well there as a typical 3-year-old does here > (I even think you would). Unfortunately, we have no way to > put your hypothesis to the test, so your claim remains unsubstantiated. > The subject is most interesting than the quoted exchange. On one hand, small children do not comprehend plenty of things which are obvious to us. Certain analytical abilities are absent till the age of 13-14 (for many individuals, till the end of their lifes). On the other, the speed of observation is often astonishing. The outer space example was a metaphore, of course. On the other hand, place a small child with a group of peers speaking different language (as an "alien", I know it first/second hand). He will understand them very fast. Now, place yourself in a preschool, say in Japan. You will learn to communicate much slower than your child. Piotr