rationalskepticism.org

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.