2 ms·
I wish I could remember the book, but I originally got it because it's title was something like "Understanding and improving learning", something like that. It
by corodra 8y ago
I wish I could remember the book, but I originally got it because it's title was something like "Understanding and improving learning", something like that. It ended up being more about the first 10 years of life's learning rather than just learning in general. Still read it because it was interesting.
Anyways, to the point. The first few years of someone's life is proven to be crazy important. It's well confirmed when they find kids who have literally lived in the woods since babies (Jungle Book style, there's a few cases world wide of this and they are all nuts/heartbreaking) and of one case of some loony parents that locked up their kid in a room from birth with next to no interaction. Just enough to feed. Wasn't rescued until around 13 or so.
They find that those missing the first few years of a parents teaching basic social interactions, speech and motor skills through play are at a severe disadvantage. It's simply a foundation. If you have a weak structural foundation, the building will collapse. Even though that foundation is never seen by the outside world (both for buildings and metaphorically), doesn't mean it's not there and it's not vital.
A bulk of your knowledge does come from outside sources. But you can't learn calculus without knowing arithmetic. And you can't learn arithmetic without someone putting up with "What number is this?" "Twee!" "Good job!". Those sessions help accelerate your learning. Without that base, learning is probably a shallow linear line through life experiences. Because you only "learn"... ish... from what you encounter. Parental teachings give you a base that help accelerate learning from linear to something more logarithmic.
I wish I could remember the book's name. She goes into some relatively well thought out public education reform that, at the least, is a damn good start in my opinion. The woman also better explains everything I mentioned because developmental teaching is her field of expertise. My library doesn't seem to offer an online history of checked out books... which is surprising or I'm stupid and can't find it.
Maybe the TLDR to this is, the parents education process helps turn learning into a logarithmic endeavor instead of a trial/error shallow linear one.
- dorgo 8y agoExamples of neglected children (Jungle Book style) are problematic. Learning won't work if their psyche is broken. Better example would be: loving parents who never teach their children anything useful - if something like that ever happened.
- corodra 8y agoAbsolutely agree. But the best progress made on how the brain works was to learn from people who received major brain damage/trauma. It's just slightly frowned upon to inflict brain damage to a healthy person for science. [Insert nazi or hydra joke here]. Jungle Book kids are the best study subjects without really crossing bad ethical lines. It's going to be difficult to convince well adjusted, loving humans to never speak to their offspring and teach them absolutely nothing. I'm sure there are some ethical issues there. Don't know exactly. But I know there has to be some ethical and legal problems there lol. Just thought of this: Couldn't we argue that if it happened early enough and said "animal caretakers", I think one Ukrainian girl was literally raised by wolves, came in early enough, would the kid have psyche issues? Their frame of reference is so limited to knowing what's "normal" and what's not, that they could possibly not develop any actual psychological issues. Actually, them being taken out of that "Jungle Book" environment and integrated into human society would cause issues. Their "Jungle Book normal" was now disturbed greatly. If timeline is true, but they still have psyche issues, could possibly mean that the human brain is wired to a form of "normal" that can't deviate by some certain amount. Just spit-balling ideas.