Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Re: The Intelligence of Children
Message-ID: <993@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 12:59:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.993
Posted: Mon Sep 16 12:59:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:22:02 EDT
References: <1246@teddy.UUCP> <694@rduxb.UUCP> <412@scirtp.UUCP> <985@bunker.UUCP> <451@scirtp.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 89

> Perhaps other parents on the net would care to contribute to 
> this discussion.

> > > ... If you have a kid someday, try to ignore your preconceptions
> > > and realize that kids are more intelligent than adults and time
> >                    -------------------------------------
> > > spent with parents is what kids nowadays don't get enough of.

Let me say, to begin with, that trying to ignore preconceptions
is a good idea, and that I agree that time spent with parents is
what kids nowadays don't get enough of.

Let me also say that this discussion already appears to be headed
towards a nonproductive argument, namely, the definition and
measurement of intelligence, and that I would regret that happening.

I will also add that my daughter (almost 3 years old) is obviously
exceptionally intelligent, in my own unbiased opinion, of course.

> > I hope the underlined clause is nothing worse than careless typing --
> > perhaps you meant to say "...than adults realize" or some such?  If not,
> > you will perhaps be so kind as to explain what you do mean?

> I guess you *don't* have children, Mr. Samuelson.

You guess wrong, sir.

> Children have more advanced imaginations, extremely vivid memories,
> the ability to learn, the ability to look at situations objectively
> ALL in excess to the same abilities of adults.

> Sure, you can argue that children are endowed with some sort of
> instinctual knowledge...

(I would not argue any such thing.)

> ...but that knowledge must be general to the
> point of total vagueness in order to explain infant adaptibility.

This is where the nonproductive arguments could start.  All of
the above abilities are difficult to define, let alone measure.  I
suspect that in attempts to measure these abilities, the tests
used with adults are not the same as those used with children,
making comparisons triply difficult.

On the other hand, I believe that these abilities in a lot
of adults have atrophied through disuse -- perhaps that explains
your perception that children are more intelligent.

> Just because my four year old can't explain the unified field
> theory or even read complete sentences doesn't mean you are
> smarter.

What does it mean?  (Note: I can't explain the unified field
theory, either.)

> Let me put it this way:
> Let's take Mr. Samuelson off of the planet earth...

(Do I hear a second? :-)

> ...and place him
> in a place that has no resemblance to earth, the laws of physics
> have no application here...

Unfortunately, I would die almost instantly, since my body holds
together partially because of the laws of physics.

> ...the other lifeforms make bizzare sounds
> and gestures, etc...
> Do you think that in 3 years you could communicate your wishes,
> make sense of your environment, and analyze events in roughly
> the same manner as your alien peers? I doubt it.

That would be an interesting experiment; but you don't think I would
pass the test (projection of your own self-image?) and I think I
would do at least as well there as a typical 3-year-old does here
(I even think you would).  Unfortunately, we have no way to
put your hypothesis to the test, so your claim remains unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that introducing someone to
the net is similar to the scenario you propose, and I think I've
done fairly well, with a couple of notable exceptions.

> "The intelligence displayed by children is quite humbling."

That's true.

Gary Samuelson