wisedupearly wrote::thumbup:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Early childhood development is something people have studied quite a bit, and quite a bit is known. Then your question is "how can we best foster good early childhood development?"

Now, early childhood development? Consists of what? The conventional approach is to use puzzles, physical manipulation with some goal that is apparent. Square block in the square hole, and so it goes. Determination of object shapes and space shapes. Determination of orientation.
The key to conventional development is achieving the goal. The teacher encourages the student to concentrate and finish without delay. Whereupon, another more complicated puzzle is provided. The child is taught that the teacher values only "good results".
This reflects society's blind acceptance of Socrates and Aristotle.

The regular teacher does not educate the child in how they should appreciate his/her mental faculties.

I'd say I have three main objections to this.

The first is that early years development happens before kids go to school, in significant part (A quick review of sources suggests early years usually denotes prenatal to 8 or 0-5). So no teacher is involved for the majority of the period.

The second is that when kids go to school, this does not, in fact, happen. When you solve a puzzle you don't get another one. Early years (the type when this concept of putting blocks into holes might occur) the same toy is available and kids are not generally encouraged to solve it, or rewarded for solving it. They just get to play with the toy.

The third is that it almost certainly has no connection to Socrates or Aristotle, and yet again this is assumed on your part with nary a supporting reason.

The answer to the second question would be, "ask my wife".

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I'd say I have three main objections to this.
The first is that early years development happens before kids go to school, in significant part (A quick review of sources suggests early years usually denotes prenatal to 8 or 0-5). So no teacher is involved for the majority of the period.
The second is that when kids go to school, this does not, in fact, happen. When you solve a puzzle you don't get another one. Early years (the type when this concept of putting blocks into holes might occur) the same toy is available and kids are not generally encouraged to solve it, or rewarded for solving it. They just get to play with the toy.
The third is that it almost certainly has no connection to Socrates or Aristotle, and yet again this is assumed on your part with nary a supporting reason.

First: the parent IS the teacher.
Second: How many puzzles consist of only square pegs and round holes? "Playing" with a toy means forming mental constructs.
Third: modern society is based upon the philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle. "The individual is is a distraction to securing the truth.
This forum is but another proof, if one were needed. Many posters appear to hate "intellectualism" -- hence the taunts, the threats, the swearing -- but are unable to stay away.

I don't believe I've taunted, threatened or sworn in my conversation with you, so that seems like an excuse. You're siezing on unrelated perceptions and then claiming that it's "proof" of your thesis - the more you don't like the responses you get (or in this case aren't getting, since as I say I don't believe I've done those things) the more you say you are vindicated. That's just a classic defence mechanism that has nothing to do with showing something is or is not the case.

If what you're saying is that parents teach children by giving them a series of puzzles and then when they solve it replacing it with a tougher puzzle I still fundamentally disagree. Very little parent-child teaching has this form and very little parent-child interaction is parent-child teaching. You seem to have taken a small part of childhood out of context and then built up a very large framework around it that just does not, in my opinion, exist.

There is a natural, undeniable progression of the cognitive capabilities of human children, of course, over time they encounter more difficult and more stimulating tasks, but this is nothing like the kind of puzzle-reward-progress rigid framework you described - even taking the blocks in holes part as a a typifier and not literally.

Just stating that this occurs and that it occurs because of Socrates and Aristotle doesn't progress the conversation, it's simple repetition, and as I've previously indicated I don't agree with that basic assertion and think we need more to go on than your assertion that it is thus and so.

wisedupearly wrote:Do you value yourself? Are you fully utilizing what evolution (rational response to reality) gave you?
Search for "exercise releases dopamine"
You'll find ample proof that light exercise stimulates the release of dopamine, which -- surprise surprise -- makes you feel good.
https://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression
Why is this so? Because the probability of survival is increased if the body is fit.
If being fit made you depressed, the chance of survival would be decreased.

What else did evolution give you? Perception, the basic mental faculty that allows you to perceive objects, orientation(up/down), self/other, causation, temporality.
Is perception (my definition) essential for survival? Unequivocally yes.
Would evolution give you an essential function that you would hate to use? Toddlers appear to enjoy games that exercise their perception.
Why not you? Simply its due to habituation and cognitive overload. Both barriers can be suppressed by practice.

Why are you assuming that I don't exercise and don't like perceptual tasks and games?

What does that have to do with "value" one way or the other?

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:

wisedupearly wrote:Do you value yourself? Are you fully utilizing what evolution (rational response to reality) gave you?
Search for "exercise releases dopamine"
You'll find ample proof that light exercise stimulates the release of dopamine, which -- surprise surprise -- makes you feel good.
https://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression
Why is this so? Because the probability of survival is increased if the body is fit.
If being fit made you depressed, the chance of survival would be decreased.

What else did evolution give you? Perception, the basic mental faculty that allows you to perceive objects, orientation(up/down), self/other, causation, temporality.
Is perception (my definition) essential for survival? Unequivocally yes.
Would evolution give you an essential function that you would hate to use? Toddlers appear to enjoy games that exercise their perception.
Why not you? Simply its due to habituation and cognitive overload. Both barriers can be suppressed by practice.

Why are you assuming that I don't exercise and don't like perceptual tasks and games?

What does that have to do with "value" one way or the other?

Interesting. Why do you assume the post is directed specifically to you.

Forum convention, you'd just replied to me, then posted another reply using the first person pronoun "you" and continuing on with the themes from the previous post very soon afterwards with no indication that you were directing it elsewhere.

If it wasn't aimed at me, fair enough, no biggie. In which case my answer is the same except where I write "me" or "I" you can insert appropriate pronouns for the group you're talking to. It's hardly a justified assumption when talking to any normal group of people that they don't like perceptual tasks and games and that they don't exercise.

wisedupearly wrote:If you exercise, good. If you do so in order to increase your fitness AND your feeling of pleasure, GREAT. Got no idea your situation.
If you value something you want to protect it (do you want to argue the opposite?).

Taken loosely, sure I'll agree. But the thing I value might not be "me" it might be "being healthy".

wisedupearly wrote:How many of the general public are failing to keep fit? Hence the general question "Do you value yourself?"

Right, but what if they value other activities more than keeping fit? This is the point, there's a finer level of detail to values than valuing a human as a lump sum totality. There are plenty of people who have self-esteem, are happy, and are not optimally fit. There are plenty of people who like a drink. There are plenty of people who love a good meal. They choose between competing values. There are basically no people who would simply choose to be unfit over being fit, but there are plenty of people who have bad habits, plenty of people who do not enjoy exercising or dieting enough to actually do it. There are also plenty of disabled people who cannot do it, and whose self-worth, quite rightly, isn't invested in their physical capablities.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I'd say I have three main objections to this.
The first is that early years development happens before kids go to school, in significant part (A quick review of sources suggests early years usually denotes prenatal to 8 or 0-5). So no teacher is involved for the majority of the period.
The second is that when kids go to school, this does not, in fact, happen. When you solve a puzzle you don't get another one. Early years (the type when this concept of putting blocks into holes might occur) the same toy is available and kids are not generally encouraged to solve it, or rewarded for solving it. They just get to play with the toy.
The third is that it almost certainly has no connection to Socrates or Aristotle, and yet again this is assumed on your part with nary a supporting reason.

First: the parent IS the teacher.
Second: How many puzzles consist of only square pegs and round holes? "Playing" with a toy means forming mental constructs.
Third: modern society is based upon the philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle. "The individual is is a distraction to securing the truth.
This forum is but another proof, if one were needed. Many posters appear to hate "intellectualism" -- hence the taunts, the threats, the swearing -- but are unable to stay away.

I don't believe I've taunted, threatened or sworn in my conversation with you, so that seems like an excuse. You're siezing on unrelated perceptions and then claiming that it's "proof" of your thesis - the more you don't like the responses you get (or in this case aren't getting, since as I say I don't believe I've done those things) the more you say you are vindicated. That's just a classic defence mechanism that has nothing to do with showing something is or is not the case.

If what you're saying is that parents teach children by giving them a series of puzzles and then when they solve it replacing it with a tougher puzzle I still fundamentally disagree. Very little parent-child teaching has this form and very little parent-child interaction is parent-child teaching. You seem to have taken a small part of childhood out of context and then built up a very large framework around it that just does not, in my opinion, exist.

There is a natural, undeniable progression of the cognitive capabilities of human children, of course, over time they encounter more difficult and more stimulating tasks, but this is nothing like the kind of puzzle-reward-progress rigid framework you described - even taking the blocks in holes part as a a typifier and not literally.

Just stating that this occurs and that it occurs because of Socrates and Aristotle doesn't progress the conversation, it's simple repetition, and as I've previously indicated I don't agree with that basic assertion and think we need more to go on than your assertion that it is thus and so.

I never singled you out as having "taunted, threatened or sworn in my conversation with you". your reflex is noted.

Whilst I appreciate a good bit of passive aggression, the point was that you were addressing this criticism to me as though it affects my behaviour or my arguments, when (since I haven't done it) it does not. It does not prove your point at all, and this kind of non sequitur deserves to be pointed out.

People swearing shows that not everyone shares your sensibilities about swearing, and really nothing else. People treating your claims and assertions with contempt (whether or not this is actually taunting and threatening, which are stronger, more objectionable behaviours that I'm not convinced we've seen) does not show any stance for or against "intellectualism", it just shows that some people aren't taking you as seriously as you think they should.

wisedupearly wrote:Education of children; we will have to agree to disagree. For reference, see here
https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/PSCONF98.PDF
Socrates and Aristotle? ditto

So, that's a 12 page summary not from a national or international curriculum, but from a professional membership organization, it does not mention Socrates or Aristotle, it does not support your claim that children undergo a process of: "The conventional approach is to use puzzles, physical manipulation with some goal that is apparent. Square block in the square hole, and so it goes. Determination of object shapes and space shapes. Determination of orientation.
The key to conventional development is achieving the goal. The teacher encourages the student to concentrate and finish without delay. Whereupon, another more complicated puzzle is provided. The child is taught that the teacher values only "good results"." in any way shape or form.

Nowhere does it say that early years education is completely goal oriented. Nowhere does it say that teachers encourage kids to finish without delay. Nowhere does it say that as each puzzle is completed a new more complicated one is provided. Nowhere does it say that children are (or should be) taught that only "good results" matter.

I genuinely can't even see what you're trying to say by linking this document with no accompanying explanation, it bears no apparent relation to the claims you're citing it as support for, even in theory, as it's a document relating to professional development, not what, how and why children are taught.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Taken loosely, sure I'll agree. But the thing I value might not be "me" it might be "being healthy".

umm, how can "being healthy" NOT be about "the person doing the exercise". You may have a logical construct that allows this.
If so, would be interested to hear it.

Are you serious? If I write a book about the holocaust, and sell that book for a value of £9.99 I'm not selling the holocaust for a value of £9.99. Things that are related or that are the subject of some other thing are not identical to it. Being healthy might be "about" a person, but that is no more significant than a book being "about" a subject. In neither case does that transfer the value from the one thing to the other. If you want the philosophical terms for this sort of thing, I suggest you look into mereology and the fallacies of composition and division.

If someone exercises because they dislike the way being unfit and unhealthy makes them feel (or they like the way being fit and healthy feels, or both), this does not mean that their self-worth, their value as a person, their "worth" becomes higher, or becomes unassailable. Their value as a person isn't necessarily affected at all, and indeed such a person might become unhappy and even in some cases choose to end their own life (or not) irrespective of their exercise choices.

Exercising and maximising life expectancy are simply two different things. They relate in some ways, but conceptually the distinction isn't a hard one to draw.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Right, but what if they value other activities more than keeping fit?

Then they do not truly value themselves.

And they aren't true Scotsmen!

We all know what your assertion is now. Repeating it serves no purpose. We are at the part of the conversation where we need to move on from simply repeating the same claim over and over.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Are you serious? If I write a book about the holocaust, and sell that book for a value of £9.99 I'm not selling the holocaust for a value of £9.99. Things that are related or that are the subject of some other thing are not identical to it. Being healthy might be "about" a person, but that is no more significant than a book being "about" a subject. In neither case does that transfer the value from the one thing to the other.

This is not a serious argument.

I think you've made it abundantly clear you aren't making a serious argument.

It makes no sense to respond this way to your own commission of a fallacy of composition. It's hardly an elaborate concept to understand that the things that I like are not identical to my worth as a person. This is not a subtle strokes distinction that you're asking me to explain here, so you didn't get a subtle answer.

You literally asked me why the value of something which is *about* something else is not identical to that of the thing it's about. I gave you an example of that same relation - something being *about* something else and very obviously not having the same value as that something else. This is the logical structure you requested (A relates to B, therefore C), and apparently you don't even disagree.

wisedupearly wrote:Drug abuse is likely to kill the user.

You know that this is just a completely false factual claim right? Most instances of drug abuse do not result in death, most drug abusers do not die of drug abuse. It's not even close to being true.

wisedupearly wrote:The drug user prioritizes "drugs" over "exercise". Does the drug user truly value himself?

Yeah, I mean, you know what a "no true Scotsman" is? That's the reason the word "truly" appears here. You have a peculiar and artbitrary set of assertions about "true" value that you pretend overrides any normal appraisal of whether someone places value on their own life, existence or totality. Drug users, like everyone else, show preferences for their own survival.

Once again, this isn't a serious issue. There's no way this is disputable beyond a tiny, tiny minority of the most heavily addicted, for the brief periods they are at their most intoxicated.

wisedupearly wrote:

Thommo wrote:[ Drug users, like everyone else, show preferences for their own survival.

Once again, this isn't a serious issue. There's no way this is disputable beyond a tiny, tiny minority of the most heavily addicted, for the brief periods they are at their most intoxicated.

Tell that to these guys
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/16/two-dead-and-two-critically-ill-after-suspected-overdoses-at-defqon1-festival-in-sydney
[/url]

Surely you're kidding? It's perfectly possible that two people die from drugs but most people don't. This is, in fact, the case. It is also perfectly possible that an individual would prefer to survive than not survive, but doesn't get that preference fulfilled. This is, in fact, also somtimes the case.

Maybe this will help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

If you want to persuade people to behave rationally, this kind of blatantly irrational argumentation is going to undercut you quite badly.

Most people who ride horses do not die from riding horses. This is not the same as saying you cannot find anyone who died from riding a horse.