4 ms·
The absence of force doesn't mean neglect. When I say children should be free to explore and learn what they want, I don't mean that parents have no role to pla
by nicholasjbs 16y ago
The absence of force doesn't mean neglect. When I say children should be free to explore and learn what they want, I don't mean that parents have no role to play in their children's education, or that every (or any) child would flourish if left alone on an island. Parents have roles to play as facilitators, mentors, etc. I think parents should introduce their children to lots of things, but I think they should force them to do little or nothing. Depending on your definition of "prodding," we might be in agreement here.
I agree different things work for different people, and there's probably a spectrum of how "naturally" disciplined people are.
That said, I think people are naturally curious and don't, at least at the beginning of their lives, gravitate towards sitting around and doing nothing. Toddlers are naturally motivated to learn to walk and talk and are almost endlessly inquisitive.
Over time, this curiosity seems to diminish. I think formal schooling, which emphasizes external motivation over internal motivation, is largely to blame.
I might be more naturally disciplined than most, but I think a big part of that comes from not having the first decades of my life mapped out for me.
- kenjackson 16y agoOver time, this curiosity seems to diminish. I really don't think it does. But I think what is valued becomes more narrow. Being curious about listening to different music bands at age 16 isn't valued as much as being curious about math. Being curious about girls isn't valued as much as being curious about programming. Being curious about knowing the stats of every baseball player isn't valued as much as being curious about Shakeaspeare. People who are curious about certain things are valued, while people are curious about other things are valued less (or rather their curiosity is valued less).