[u][i][b]I no longer take whole acceptance in the ideas presented. I will leave this post intact for the sake of future reference.[/b][/i][/u]
[u][i][b]Final Words:[/b][/i][/u]
Even though I was presented with some heavy counter information, I know there is a room to improve the child’s environment for great cognitive skills.
Because of this idea being a personal invention, I still want to try it regardless of Piaget’s studies. My optimism leans on the hope that the brain might be able to make other nontraditional links to comprehend the summarized-occurrences(numbers)
[url=http://keysle.tumblr.com/post/5115288808/prodigy-childhood-development]Prodigy Childhood Development[/url]
[img]http://f.braxupload.se/5gumjn.jpg[/img]
The brain absorbs information from its surroundings and extracts patterns; defining variables and laws. It does this a lot when we’re children. Because of this, we eventually learn how to talk, walk, and do almost everything.
Relative to the actions we learn, the actions that are hard wired are very few. But because of these hard wired reactions we structure the foundation for our entire life style. But I digress.
The environment that our children are extracting variables from is chaotic. We see a wall, then we see a toy, then we hear a car crash, then we see water, then hear an opera, etc etc etc. Until we experience something multiple times, we can’t make a reference point to conclude a pattern.
What if we made the patterns more obvious? Drawings on the walls, sound tracks and more. I would create an environment that illustrated the physical properties of the universe. The properties and relationships between shapes and other fundamentals that come with living in this world. I have a basic idea of how I would present this information.
The only issue is this. Making such patterns blatant may make the brain lazy. But the partial exposure to an unorganized world may save a child from this. I’ll need to run some tests.
On a personal note. I don’t think my most-likely-wife-to-be would tolerate this kind of procedure. Not because it’s inhumane. It just requires an alternative art design that I don’t think would appeal to her. Eh… I’ll be paying the mortgage anyway.
If I have time I may illustrate what a wall/ceiling/poster/ or something may look like.
It would be awesome if the entire house could be designed by my method. It is artistic. … But I digress.
Here is a brief splurge of my ideas:
-Black would represent an object
-Colors would represent digits
-Gray would designate a measurement being defined.
[img]http://f.braxupload.se/1bu46p.jpg[/img]
In this example we have the gray circle defining the base and number. Base 6 because there are 6 digits(6 colors). The first digit is defined by the slit in the gray circle. Red = 0, orange = 1, Yellow = 2, Green = 3, Blue = 4, Purple = 5. The value defined is 6320(in base 10). It’s pointing to a star. So the idea is that we have 6320 stars … or something.
Of course with just this illustration a baby won’t know that we’re talking about 6320 stars (base 10)
With more illustrations a point of reference will be generated.
Brief note: I would probably have the defined number have some type of reference symbol that would point to a black box carrying the same reference symbol. This black box can contain more reference symbols or a basic image.
With the reference point generated by 100s of other images we could help define Pi(circumference divided by diameter) to the baby. And other physical relationships. (the least amount of triangles in a pentagon,the surface area remaining after a fitting circle is cut in an equilateral triangle/square/hexagon … and other stuff like that)
Within the last couple of paragraphs you might have let a little doubt seep in. Refer to paragraph 1 and tell me what’s missing from the loop.
The idea is that the nature of the physical universe would become intuitive to the child. Mathematics as well. Anything else that one incorporates in this design would as well.
Brief note(2): Why base6? It's not just base6. That example will be accompanied by other bases. We'll define the the amount of stars (or something more important) in multiple bases. Seeing the relationships between bases just increases the level of genius.
Any thoughts, anyone?
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
tl;dr?
Make some logically allocated shapes and colors in your baby's room and the baby will be really smart.
edit:
So this was brought to my attention
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development]“The concrete operational stage is the third of four stages of cognitive development in Piaget’s theory. This stage, which follows the preoperational stage, occurs between the ages of 7 and 11 years and is characterized by the appropriate use of logic.”[/url]
The only hope for anything like this working is the chance that the conclusions from Piaget are only because the ability to summarize re-occurrences (understand numbers) comes from the environment not supplying enough data for the brain to conclude significant patterns earlier. Practicing a similar design like the above explained would increase he environments input of recognizable patterns...
/optimism
Babies development doesnt work like that. All those baby freaks who expose their children to Mozart or Beethoven end up with normal kids, only asian parents can force prodigy.
Oh god this is hilarious.
[sp]Or pathetic, if you're actually being serious.[/sp]
Read Outliers while you're at it.
Better yet, turn Wikipedia articles into posters and put them in his room.
It's like fung shui for your baby's brain then?
Haha. Staring at "logically associated shapes and colors" won't do much to a brain that can't draw any sort of logical conclusions other than "if I scream I'll get their attention".
[QUOTE=tonzofgunz;29558473]Babies development doesnt work like that.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying they don't define patterns based on the information from their environment?
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=demoguy08;29558511]Haha. Staring at "logically associated shapes and colors" won't do much to a brain that can't draw any sort of logical conclusions other than "if I scream I'll get their attention".[/QUOTE]
Following this logic, talking around the baby doesn't teach it how to talk.
what
I remember when my school thought I was a 'prodigy' because I added all the numbers between 1 and 100 as I wrote 100+0, 99+1 and then noticed a pattern and did (50*100) +50
yeah don't worry
you won't get laid in the first place to get a baby
[QUOTE=Rubs10;29558493] turn Wikipedia articles into posters and put them in his room.[/QUOTE]
JUST articles doesn't give the child any reference point.
abcdefghijk... don't mean much of anything to the child outside of the presented shapes.
Reading can be learned from just observation, but thats demanding a lot of observation with many pre-solidified ideas
[quote]What if we made the patterns more obvious? Drawings on the walls, sound tracks and more. I would create an environment that illustrated the physical properties of the universe. The properties and relationships between shapes and other fundamentals that come with living in this world.[/quote]
This would totally kill any practical real-world applications.
-Why did I even type that when I knew I shouldn't.-
[QUOTE=Keysle;29558520]Following this logic, talking around the baby doesn't teach it how to talk.[/QUOTE]
You're right, but speech is not quite the same as abstract logic. Learning how to talk involves several senses (mainly hearing and sight) and I'm not sure about this but recieving input from more than one source probably boosts learning. Then there's the parenting factor, the child observes his/her parents do it and obviously wants to try the same thing. Then there's a factor of attention, how are the shapes going to keep the child's attention long enough to do any good?
Edit
I see now you mentioned sound tracks, so that covers the "multiple senses" part then. But how is the child going to make the connection between what's being heard and seen?
[QUOTE=Dude902;29558659]This would totally kill any practical real-world applications.[/QUOTE]
The relationships between words are complex.
The relationships between physical objects are not.
The issue is that physical relationships are never quantified until much later.
hi my name is Keysle and I once read an article on child development which means I can make up theories on it without sourcing anything.
Prodigy is a good band and I'd like to know more about their childhood.
[editline]2nd May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;29558874]hi my name is Keysle and I once read an article on child development which means I can make up theories on it without sourcing anything.[/QUOTE]
Uh, that's what theories are. They are usually untested and without a source. If it had a source and was proven, it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?
[QUOTE=demoguy08;29558802]Learning how to talk involves several senses (mainly hearing and sight) and I'm not sure about this but recieving input from more than one source probably boosts learning.?[/QUOTE]
My sources (one minor class in psychology) confirm this
[QUOTE=demoguy08;29558802]Then there's the parenting factor, the child observes his/her parents do it and obviously wants to try the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. But I don't think everything done by the child is a copy of the parent's actions.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;29558802] Then there's a factor of attention, how are the shapes going to keep the child's attention long enough to do any good?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the wall paintings will fail. But the blocks that the child plays with.
There isn't much to do outside of "look at the walls" when you're in a crib though.
Just saying. But great point.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;29558884]Uh, that's what[B] theories [/B]are. They are usually untested and without a source. If it had a source and was proven, it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?[/QUOTE]
*Hypotheses. A hypothesis does not reach the rank of scientific theory until it has been thoroughly tested.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;29558884]Prodigy is a good band and I'd like to know more about their childhood.
[editline]2nd May 2011[/editline]
Uh, that's what theories are. They are usually untested and without a source. If it had a source and was proven, it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?[/QUOTE]
A hypothesis is an untested conclusion. A theory is the highest point a scientific idea can get after being throughly proven. - the theory of evolution, gravity, etc. This doesn't even have any basis in any current science no sources supporting this speculation, not to mention that this is just some guy making stuff up as he goes along.
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;29558874]hi my name is Keysle and I once read an article on child development which means I can make up theories on it without sourcing anything.[/QUOTE]
We extract patterns from our environment and make use of them.
That was my only basis for this.
What I've presented balances on this well known idea.
The last line "any thoughts, anyone?" invites scientific critique, which suggest that I might have a hole in my extension of logic.
[QUOTE=Keysle;29558922]My sources (one minor class in psychology) confirm this
Agreed. But I don't think everything done by the child is a copy of the parent's actions.
Perhaps the wall paintings will fail. But the blocks that the child plays with.
There isn't much to do outside of "look at the walls" when you're in a crib though.
Just saying. But great point.[/QUOTE]
"I minored in psychology, so I can make shit up without as much as citing anything."
[QUOTE=tonzofgunz;29558473]Babies development doesnt work like that. All those baby freaks who expose their children to Mozart or Beethoven end up with normal kids, only asian parents can force prodigy.[/QUOTE]
That's exposure to pieces of work that have no connection to fundamentals.
The designs depicted are close to fundamentals(relationships between shapes)
I'm actually curious OP. Can you link me some solid articles on child development?
[QUOTE=Keysle;29559000]We extract patterns from our environment and make use of them.
That was my only basis for this.
What I've presented balances on this well known idea.
The last line "any thoughts, anyone?" invites scientific critique, which suggest that I might have a hole in my extension of logic.[/QUOTE]
You jumped from patterns in the environment to teaching babies the basics of pi and creating geniuses through blocks and music without so much as a source from a reputable journal to prove this jump in logic let alone show it goes along with current scientific theory.
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;29559029]"I minored in psychology, so I can make shit up without as much as citing anything."[/QUOTE]
1 minor class in psychology is not a minor.
Agreed. The term "minor" combined with "class" does imply a degree title with "minor".
That class has little to do with the basic idea I've presented.
My mentioning of it is applied to something, AGAIN, well known.
[QUOTE=Keysle;29559114]1 minor class in psychology is not a minor.
Agreed. The term "minor" combined with "class" does imply a degree title with "minor".
That class has little to do with the basic idea I've presented.
My mentioning of it is applied to something, AGAIN, well known.[/QUOTE]
interpreting patterns in the enviorment is well known.
teaching higher level concepts to toddlers and infants via their environment is not and would require a vast amount of evidence to prove this or at least sources to prove this goes along with current scientific theory.
I don't think the child has enough attention span to think this through. The only thing going through their mind will be 'Colors!'
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;29559148]I don't think the child has enough attention span to think this through. The only thing going through their mind will be 'Colors!'[/QUOTE]
incorrect, this is a common assumption though. a childs mind is like a sponge, learning much faster than anyone older. not taking advantage of this window is pretty silly.
this thread has a shitton of studies to back it up, dont dismiss it because of your personal jealously.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
