tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post464087529041352601..comments2023-10-03T23:17:59.861-04:00Comments on Puerile Psyche: ReasoningMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-74618848082876135992007-12-13T15:54:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:54:00.000-05:00The key problem here, dear author... is the fact t...The key problem here, dear author... is the fact that the mind is not very well understood by modern science. There are some good inroads being made to studying it - like Gestalt Theory - but we have a long way to go.<BR/><BR/>The elephant in the room is the question "What is reasoning?" And "how is reasoning different from other things that one does in one's mind?" Reasoning does not require agile thinking skills. Any sentient being can reason. Reasoning can be done over the course of long periods of time. Reasoning about one issue can even be done in many separate time frames. And awkward thinking habits don't overtly interfere with that process.<BR/><BR/>The question "why?" and the question "how?" are universally interesting topics.<BR/><BR/>____________<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now how are these ideas of yours best applied in children's lives?<BR/><BR/>Children were not always thought of, in the usa, as they are today. I grew up in the 1970s. And when I was growing up, one-man was waging a television campaign for changing the way children were raised. This man was Fred Rogers. Everybody could agree on the ethics which Fred Rogers talked about in his television show "Mr. Rogers' neighborhood." What happened next, was that the trade association for preschool teachers - the NAEYC - decided to change the way things were done in the usa. They designed accreditation programs for daycare centers. They designed degree programs for early childhood education in colleges. And these people - most of whom were females - infused the childcare industry with this perspective we have about children today - that their minds are not developed - that they can't reason, and so they need to be protected from negative ideas. Children, they think of as being like fragile little eggs... or like blank slates upon which parents can write.<BR/><BR/>Centuries ago, there was hot debate over what would happen when society got "soft." It was known that aristocratic children led very different lives, than those who were poor, and working for a living. There were many who insisted things like "idle hands are the devil's workshop." They didn't want laws preventing children from working.<BR/><BR/>Even in the 1960s, the conception of what children were was very different from what it is today. There's a great series of films you might be interested in seeing, by the filmmaker Michael Apted. The first one is called "Seven Up," and there are sequels "Fourteen up", "Twenty-one up," and so forth. These films follow the lives of children in Britain. The first installment starts when they are 7 years of age in 1963. A couple kids are in an orphanage. A couple are in the regular public schools... and a couple are in private schools. It's very fascinating to see how children interacted with eachother back then... and how they were treated by adults. I think children are better off today, by and large... because of this special niche they've been given. But we have lost respect for children, as well, to some degree.<BR/><BR/>A lot of the frustration where parents throw up their hands, and don't know how to effectively guide their children, results from a misconception that their children cannot reason. Everybody wants to do what is best for themselves. And parents should be reasoning with their children, from birth. Infants won't understand the words... but they will understand facial expressions, gestures, and such things. Little children who are intent on some action, will often not acknowledge that they heard something from the adult. But they will think about what you said, and you can always physically restrain them, if it's necessary to protect their safety, property, or the maintain the sanity of the social environment.<BR/><BR/>This brings us to <B>authoritarian</B> versus <B>authoritative</B> versus <B>laissez-faire</B> child rearing ideologies. An authoritarian person insists that the child does what she or he commands, without understanding the reasons why or wherefore. That authoritarian person expects compliance, even if the child realizes that to do those things isn't good or constructive in view of the situation. A laissez-faire person neglects the child's needs, and believes that free exploration, and school of hard knocks will teach the kid everything she or he needs to know. An authoritative parent or teacher will make the child's welfare the center of the project... and will do things to nurture that child. This kind of teacher can be relied upon to maintain proper structure, to a social environment involving a group of kids. He won't let chaos reign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com