[QUOTE=Mattk50;29559259]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[b] shitton of studies[/b] to back it up, dont dismiss it because of your personal jealously.[/QUOTE]
Then show us.
I seriously can't understand how anybody (of any age) is supposed to get a meaning out of your example.
I can't see babies working out number bases from a collection of colours. I understand that pattern recognition is instinctive, but I think this is too high-level.
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;29559146]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.[/QUOTE]
Higher level concepts?
The word "Higher" is awfully relative. So please give examples.
Personally, I think, addition, and subtraction are very basic. (i'm sure you agree)
The next step is multiplication and division.
How far this goes is arguable.
But I think it can be extended into comprehending that there are lengths and that these lengths can be summarized via these numbers. With the solidified ideas of multiplication and division, if illustrated properly "the length" of a circle's diameter can be defined and its circumference as well.
And that is all you need to determine Pi.
Experimentation is the only way to prove we can enhance their "inventory of recognized patterns" with this practice. It's untouched for all I know. We just have to see how deep this pattern recognition can go.
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29559559]I seriously can't understand how anybody (of any age) is supposed to get a meaning out of your example.
I can't see babies working out number bases from a collection of colours. I understand that pattern recognition is instinctive, but I think this is too high-level.[/QUOTE]
I said myself that 1 example is not enough. Multiple examples, with outside context would allow for a meaningful interpretation.
My mother set up my room like this too when I was younger.
I fuck bitches all day now.
Actually I'm retarded. Living evidence of this nonsense.
We all agree we learn patterns from experience.
We all agree that this is how we learn to talk.
I say that we can learn some level of mathematics and shape-logic with this tactic.
If you disagree with what I say. Then where is the in between point? (of course that point will vary with each child, but give me an average)
[QUOTE=Keysle;29559613]Higher level concepts?
The word "Higher" is awfully relative. So please give examples.
Personally, I think, addition, and subtraction are very basic. (i'm sure you agree)
The next step is multiplication and division.
How far this goes is arguable.
But I think it can be extended into comprehending that there are lengths and that these lengths can be summarized via these numbers. With the solidified ideas of multiplication and division, if illustrated properly "the length" of a circle's diameter can be defined and its circumference as well.
And that is all you need to determine Pi.
Experimentation is the only way to prove we can enhance their "inventory of recognized patterns" with this practice. It's untouched for all I know. We just have to see how deep this pattern recognition can go.
[editline]1st May 2011[/editline]
I said myself that 1 example is not enough. Multiple examples, with outside context would allow for a meaningful interpretation.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that according to Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development, a generally accepted scientific theory on cognitive development, a child only becomes physically able to process math skills at ages 7-12, with algebraic concepts such as pi becoming possible at ages 12 and up? I'd rather trust a scientific theory on the same subject that has been thoroughly peer-checked and researched more than your arbitrary guesses at development.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development[/url]
-snip-
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;29559775]You do realize that according to Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development, a generally accepted scientific theory on cognitive development, a child only becomes physically able to process math skills at ages 7-12, with algebraic concepts such as pi becoming possible at ages 12 and up? I'd rather trust a scientific theory on the same subject that has been thoroughly peer-checked and researched more than your arbitrary guesses at development.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development[/url][/QUOTE]
I did not realize.
I had no idea that summarizing multiple occurrences with a symbol required that much development.
End of discussion?
Sure why not.
hmm i dont get it
The thing is, as far as I know (and by the sounds of it, everybody else), this hasn't been tried before. Babies brains are very different to even a young child's, so who know what they could pick up. Until experiments and trials have been carried out nobody knows.
I just think that highly abstract concepts like number bases wouldn't occur to a baby. I've always thought of their reasoning being much more linked with physical things. "I have three wooden blocks. If I throw one at my uncle's head, I will have two and he will have one embedded in his eye..."
What I was meaning with your single example is how would you get the baby to associate weightings to the colours? What other kind of things would you have in these pictures?
-took too long writing, bury me in clocks-
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;29560092]What I was meaning with your single example is how would you get the baby to associate weightings to the colours? What other kind of things would you have in these pictures?[/QUOTE]
The weight of each color would be "figured out to be" lowest to highest, starting with the one at the circle's slit.
Let's say the child has 5 stuffed cats he chills with.
On his, block, wall, ceiling (w/e) he/she sees this:
[img]http://f.braxupload.se/5r72tr.jpg[/img]
*good work... I know* ** I didn't check my math... :/ so it may not all be right, but You get the idea right?**
the top gray circle is base 6
below, 5
4
3
& finally 2
The ":3" is a symbolic summarization for what is in the connected black box containing the cats and the "extraction-indicator"(just made that up) the extraction indicator is the light gray symbol that implies that we're counting the re-occurrences.
There are several critical jumps that need to be made:
-Every number's weight is defined by its order
-The first connected oval is the 1's place
-The light gray symbol is an "extraction-indicator"
-That this particular light gray symbol is asking for a count
-Black contains the reference material
-white in the black is the "pointer" symbol for referring to stuff.
-gray is used to define a measurement
The question of "how does the child conclude this?" doesn't make me feel that this is impossible (ignoring Piaget's theory). Just like "how will my child conclude that 'popa' means father" doesn't scare me. Assuming we can ignore Piaget, I can only hope I've provided enough context for the child.
according to Piaget, none of these things are possible because the brain is not developed enough. But let's ignore him for the moment and try to figure out how we can draw meaningful connections.
For the sake of "hope" let's just say the conclusions of his studies were only because their environments didn't demand such growth, meaning that the growth only occurred because summarization became necessary or had just achieved the amount of re-occurrences to be recognized. (In this extension, we're increasing the amount of re-occurrences speeding up the process [again, ignoring Piaget] of the brains ability to summarize data in the forms of numbers)
Shit this gets complicated. At some point we have to hope that our child jumps onto the correct circular ring of definition. It's kinda like trying to learn a language just by reading the dictionary, even with pictures these things don't serve any meaning without outside experience.
edit:
it would be more efficient if the light gray symbol was attached to the measurement... we might be using that cat picture for something else.
I would rather have a kid who had a fulfilling childhood than forcing them to go through this stupid "child prodigy" shit.
Seriously experience and wisdom are much more important then just knowledge.
[QUOTE=hehe;29560934]I would rather have a kid who had a fulfilling childhood than forcing them to go through this stupid "child prodigy" shit.
Seriously experience and wisdom are much more important then just knowledge.[/QUOTE]
My idea was to blend it into their environment so that both could be achieved.
I don't think they should be robbed of their childhood just to show off how smart they are.
[img]http://i51.tinypic.com/261bsxz.jpg[/img]
You know I still have to try this
I just have to. My design will also look freaking awesome
[quote]
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.[/quote]
what the fuck
The brain does not work this way. In order for a system like this to work, the brain would need something to compare this system to. Obviously since [the baby's brain] is brand-spankin' new to the world, it has absolutely no point of reference to what the fuck something as simple as a color, let alone the concept of an arrow pointing to something means. It would first need to be taught.
But the problem is, if you teach the baby at a young age that these colors are always associated with a number, object, or whatever, you're dooming your child's future when they try to use that in the real world but find out it doesn't really work.
Here's a fun little game to try. It shows how the brain is always comparing present experiences with the closest thing it can reference; usually ideas or concepts learned in the past. It can also use present data.
Now here's the game. Look at your left hand. What do you notice?
[sp]Did you look at your right hand and compare them? If so, that's exactly my point. The brain needs a reference point in order to move forward.[/sp]
This is all ignoring Piaget
[QUOTE=Master117;29565339]The brain does not work this way. In order for a system like this to work, the brain would need something to compare this system to.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, 1 illustration is not enough.
BTW: The arrow I'm replacing with a symbol of summarization (simply because it's more organized)
[QUOTE=Master117;29565339]
But the problem is, if you teach the baby at a young age that these colors are always associated with a number, object, or whatever, you're dooming your child's future when they try to use that in the real world but find out it doesn't really work.
[/QUOTE]
What I had in mind was to create the ability to process numbers.
This could then be translated to other symbols.
If it needs to start with other symbols... then sure.
I don't think it would necessarily doom the child, because it has the exposure to the outside world.
I should actually develop a "painting" of this... just to give a better illustration.
If you crush and grind moonrocks untill you discover Repulsive Gel, I'll proclaim you a child prodigy. :buddy:
[QUOTE=Keysle;29558403]pseudoscience bullshit[/QUOTE]
Your child won't be a prodigy if you believe stuff like that, because if you believe that then you're retarded, and there's no way your child can be a prodigy if you're retarded
[editline]2nd May 2011[/editline]
Unless of course there is any evidence of people becoming prodigies in the past because of this technique. Then it's not pseudoscience, and believing it isn't retarded
Try it OP, no harm can come of it if it doesn't work, and if it does work, you've just raised a genius.
i found this creepy
I learned to read when I was around 3 years so I'm pretty sure you can teach your child to do things they would normally do if they were older.
Think about it though, way in the past mathematicians had just figured out algebra and all that jazz. Now it's pretty common for a twelve year old to understand it.
If a child is able to make genius level developments from the "system" you dreamed up, then they should be able to become a prodigy from looking at anything.
Honestly, if you put a bunch of symbols and pictures and shit up in an adults room, they wouldn't give it a second thought, and neither will a baby. They would, at most, just associate cats with some weird-ass symbol you cooked up. It would be more effective to just put a picture of a cat on their wall with "CAT" written next to it.
It's largely bullshit, however, my family didn't have a TV until I was around 6/7 and as a result I was bought up on a diet of Radio 4 and folk music alone, and I believe I'm certainly better of for it.
[QUOTE=Keysle;29560777]The weight of each color would be "figured out to be" lowest to highest, starting with the one at the circle's slit.
Let's say the child has 5 stuffed cats he chills with.
On his, block, wall, ceiling (w/e) he/she sees this:
[img_thumb]http://f.braxupload.se/5r72tr.jpg[/img_thumb]
*good work... I know* ** I didn't check my math... :/ so it may not all be right, but You get the idea right?**
the top gray circle is base 6
below, 5
4
3
& finally 2
The ":3" is a symbolic summarization for what is in the connected black box containing the cats and the "extraction-indicator"(just made that up) the extraction indicator is the light gray symbol that implies that we're counting the re-occurrences.
There are several critical jumps that need to be made:
-Every number's weight is defined by its order
-The first connected oval is the 1's place
-The light gray symbol is an "extraction-indicator"
-That this particular light gray symbol is asking for a count
-Black contains the reference material
-white in the black is the "pointer" symbol for referring to stuff.
-gray is used to define a measurement
The question of "how does the child conclude this?" doesn't make me feel that this is impossible (ignoring Piaget's theory). Just like "how will my child conclude that 'popa' means father" doesn't scare me. Assuming we can ignore Piaget, I can only hope I've provided enough context for the child.
according to Piaget, none of these things are possible because the brain is not developed enough. But let's ignore him for the moment and try to figure out how we can draw meaningful connections.
For the sake of "hope" let's just say the conclusions of his studies were only because their environments didn't demand such growth, meaning that the growth only occurred because summarization became necessary or had just achieved the amount of re-occurrences to be recognized. (In this extension, we're increasing the amount of re-occurrences speeding up the process [again, ignoring Piaget] of the brains ability to summarize data in the forms of numbers)
Shit this gets complicated. At some point we have to hope that our child jumps onto the correct circular ring of definition. It's kinda like trying to learn a language just by reading the dictionary, even with pictures these things don't serve any meaning without outside experience.
edit:
it would be more efficient if the light gray symbol was attached to the measurement... we might be using that cat picture for something else.[/QUOTE]
Are you autistic?
I can't take OP serious after his eugenics thread.
[QUOTE=Engie;29597550]I can't take OP serious after his eugenics thread.[/QUOTE]
I can't take him serious after he made a Minecraft thread and tried to be gangsta in it.
hi i play piano i'm asian
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
