oh that's fine. :) I'll disagree on outlook though. I believe that at least neural-net-wise a brain develops according to what one practices the most. If that

oh that's fine. :) I'll disagree on outlook though. I believe that at least neural-net-wise a brain develops according to what one practices the most. If that's reasoning then its reasoning. I think its a bit frivolous to just assume that abstract concepts are beyond children of that age, I think if anything its more a failing of our means of explaining them correctly. Of course its ultimately possible when the three year old I chat to claims to understand that they are lying to me or are just seeing their response as a hoop to jump through, however I would posit that the vast majority of the required components are formed by this point. The remainder just being a process of dispelling the various foggy bits through practice and exploration. TL;DR; I fancy the brain to be more a thing that just improves over time. Even if incorrect I certainly doubt that "reasoning" or "abstraction" are just modules that are either IN or OUT of the developing brain. I feel like these sorts of distinctions are unproductive and too coarse to make. Like I get that there are bits that are somewhat nonfunctional. She struggles to remember but she can if she really tries or events had impact, she can process-of-elimination to find the location of one of our tribe, she can understand that a word has double or triple meaning and double checks with us when we give her an old label with new meaning. I feel like there is plenty of stuff going on there that could be fashioned into "reasoning" and "abstraction", hence my issue with your assertion.