3 ms·

>What is vitally missing in my view is a recognition that kids learn extremely important lessons through play, and that these lessons are no less important to s

by ronaldx 13y ago

>What is vitally missing in my view is a recognition that kids learn extremely important lessons through play, and that these lessons are no less important to success than learning math or science in school. Play is sometimes seen as important (in animals) because it establishes a dominance ranking in a less formal/less dangerous way than full-on fighting. Is that then a positive thing for children to engage in? For a culture to be more meritocratic, it would seem reasonable and perhaps necessary for society to discourage this type of play, no?

pjc50 13y ago
That's an extremely narrow view of "play"!
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Sure. I understand that I've been insta-downvoted for that, but it doesn't change that I think it's worth considering. We (in the West) like play because we believe that play influences learning: we have a very positive view of play, which I generally agree with. But, we have to consider that play, depending on the nature of it, has potential negative consequences as well. I'm suggesting that in a highly meritocratic society, alternative dominance rankings cannot be allowed/encouraged. Another commenter indicates that they would value a discussion: but the current culture of downvoting for disagreement seems counterproductive to open discussion.
einhverfr 13y ago
It's not just dominance though, and I disagree with you. The value of play is that it teaches a couple of very important things. The first is that things fit together in different ways. When children are playing they are usually engaging in highly creative activity (provided it isn't sitting in front of the video game console). This activity is important to a whole range of things, and it includes things as diverse as self-motivation and invention. For a culture to discourage play is to focus not so much on meritocracy so much as it is in quashing individualism both regarding internal motivation and innovation. I say this even though I sincerely believe that innovation depends on details and that masters of a craft are the best able to innovate within it. But unless you have a sense of empowerment and motivation to do this, this is significantly slowed down. Again, this is just tackling the point on play. I don't think it is about meritocracy. I think it is about the relationship between individual production and community.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  It's commonly said that the West is more creative because of its permissive play culture, but I think I would challenge this for lack of evidence. First, it's not obvious that play is the most effective way to learn creativity. Second, Asia has a great history of art and individual creativity that doesn't seem diminished. It was reported just today that a more creative problem-solving test has been added to the Pisa tests. Guess which continent dominates the rankings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26823184 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26823184
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    I don't think you can really test creative problem solving. Quantifying this is very hard and you run into cross-cultural problems which I think is your major objection to what I said. Also a second real problem with your thesis occurs to me, namely that Chinese-Indonesian culture really stresses competitive sports, where the domination aspect is most heavy. So it can't be about discouraging domination. What I do see, again, is a question of how individual production ties into family and community. This is where the huge difference lies. In this regard, unrestrained creativity is a threat to order, but so is self-motivation, because both of these become in tension IME with the familial approach to business decision making that we see, at least with my in-laws etc. In essence what I see (from close-up mind you) is that Asians tend to be more risk adverse than Americans, far more concerned about credentials and school records, and far more aggressive about tying individual aspirations to family obligations. I do think this has implications regarding innovation. This is not to say there aren't things I really appreciate about Asian culture. The strong familial links has a very positive side to it, namely that adults don't have to save up for retirement (that's what kids are for) and therefore are more free to invest in the launch of their children. This is a lesson we are going to have to learn again in the West.

by ronaldx 13y ago

pjc50 13y ago

That's an extremely narrow view of "play"!

ronaldx 13y ago
Sure. I understand that I've been insta-downvoted for that, but it doesn't change that I think it's worth considering. We (in the West) like play because we believe that play influences learning: we have a very positive view of play, which I generally agree with. But, we have to consider that play, depending on the nature of it, has potential negative consequences as well. I'm suggesting that in a highly meritocratic society, alternative dominance rankings cannot be allowed/encouraged. Another commenter indicates that they would value a discussion: but the current culture of downvoting for disagreement seems counterproductive to open discussion.

einhverfr 13y ago

It's not just dominance though, and I disagree with you. The value of play is that it teaches a couple of very important things. The first is that things fit together in different ways. When children are playing they are usually engaging in highly creative activity (provided it isn't sitting in front of the video game console). This activity is important to a whole range of things, and it includes things as diverse as self-motivation and invention. For a culture to discourage play is to focus not so much on meritocracy so much as it is in quashing individualism both regarding internal motivation and innovation. I say this even though I sincerely believe that innovation depends on details and that masters of a craft are the best able to innovate within it. But unless you have a sense of empowerment and motivation to do this, this is significantly slowed down. Again, this is just tackling the point on play. I don't think it is about meritocracy. I think it is about the relationship between individual production and community.

ronaldx 13y ago
It's commonly said that the West is more creative because of its permissive play culture, but I think I would challenge this for lack of evidence. First, it's not obvious that play is the most effective way to learn creativity. Second, Asia has a great history of art and individual creativity that doesn't seem diminished. It was reported just today that a more creative problem-solving test has been added to the Pisa tests. Guess which continent dominates the rankings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26823184 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26823184
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I don't think you can really test creative problem solving. Quantifying this is very hard and you run into cross-cultural problems which I think is your major objection to what I said. Also a second real problem with your thesis occurs to me, namely that Chinese-Indonesian culture really stresses competitive sports, where the domination aspect is most heavy. So it can't be about discouraging domination. What I do see, again, is a question of how individual production ties into family and community. This is where the huge difference lies. In this regard, unrestrained creativity is a threat to order, but so is self-motivation, because both of these become in tension IME with the familial approach to business decision making that we see, at least with my in-laws etc. In essence what I see (from close-up mind you) is that Asians tend to be more risk adverse than Americans, far more concerned about credentials and school records, and far more aggressive about tying individual aspirations to family obligations. I do think this has implications regarding innovation. This is not to say there aren't things I really appreciate about Asian culture. The strong familial links has a very positive side to it, namely that adults don't have to save up for retirement (that's what kids are for) and therefore are more free to invest in the launch of their children. This is a lesson we are going to have to learn again in the West.