Kids Vs Adults

[petrushkagoogol]

What are the areas where kids are on par with adults ? -

 

Kids on account of their smaller size and limited energy are unable to compete with adults.

 

There are some areas where this is not true -

 

* Humor - kids can tickle the funny bone as well as adults can. They can be as expressive as adults.

* Sports - indoor and outdoor eg) chess and gymnastics - eg)Sergey Karajkin and Olga Korbut, legends in their respective sports started really young

 

Can you identify more such areas ? 

[DrKrettin]

They are probably tastier, if you are keen on cannibalism. I'm extrapolating from pigs.

[Turtle]

They are probably tastier, if you are keen on cannibalism. I'm extrapolating from pigs.

 

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...” ~Jonathan Swift,

A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public (1729)

[A-wal]

 

What are the areas where kids are on par with adults ? -

 

Kids on account of their smaller size and limited energy are unable to compete with adults.

 

There are some areas where this is not true -

 

* Humor - kids can tickle the funny bone as well as adults can. They can be as expressive as adults.

* Sports - indoor and outdoor eg) chess and gymnastics - eg)Sergey Karajkin and Olga Korbut, legends in their respective sports started really young

 

Can you identify more such areas ? 

Creativity and imagination, the stuff that gets gradually destroyed by formal education. They have adults beat hands down!

[Turtle]

Does Education Stifle Creativity? Does school really kill creativity?

 

Experts in creativity are sometimes damning about the stifling effects of education on creativity. In a comment on his own post on The Seven Deadly Sins that Prevent Creative Thinking, Psychology Today blogger Michael Michalko comments "Unfortunately, I've come to believe that education is a great inhibitor of our natural creativity... To me it seems that in the real world those who know more, create less; and those who know less create more". He is not alone in his criticisms of the stifling effects of the educational establishment. The Learn in Freedom website, which advocates home schooling, contains a page of quotes from Nobel Laureates entitled "Nobel Prize Winners Hate School". The website TED frequently hosts talks with titles like "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity".

...

What evidence is there that might cast light on this dispute?

 

1) This list of Nobel Laureates suggests that many of them have survived encounters with higher education with their ability to produce ground-breaking research or original literature intact. (I tried unsuccessfully to find a clearer list of the educational qualifications of Nobel Laureates. If anyone is aware of such a list, please post the link in the comments section. I would suspect that regardless of field of endeavour, most laureates are highly qualified).

 

2) Research shows that people working in creative and artistic fields are twice as likely to have college degrees as people in the workforce in general.

 

3) There is evidence that creativity is dependent on extensive depth of knowledge in a field (see Chapter 12 of the Handbook of Creativity).

 

4) Countries where people are more educated tend to produce higher levels of innovation.

[A-wal]

The website TED frequently hosts talks with titles like "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity".

That's an amazing talk, everyone should see it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY And the follow up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I

 

What evidence is there that might cast light on this dispute?

 

1) This list of Nobel Laureates suggests that many of them have survived encounters with higher education with their ability to produce ground-breaking research or original literature intact. (I tried unsuccessfully to find a clearer list of the educational qualifications of Nobel Laureates. If anyone is aware of such a list, please post the link in the comments section. I would suspect that regardless of field of endeavour, most laureates are highly qualified).

 

2) Research shows that people working in creative and artistic fields are twice as likely to have college degrees as people in the workforce in general.

 

3) There is evidence that creativity is dependent on extensive depth of knowledge in a field (see Chapter 12 of the Handbook of Creativity).

 

4) Countries where people are more educated tend to produce higher levels of innovation.

This is all very narrow minded and misleading.

 

1) To become a Nobel Laureate you have in to be in the formal education system so obviously they tend to be highly qualified.

 

2) Because their qualifications allow the to get cushy jobs and they have more time on their hands to pursue artistic interests. Many of them have enough money behind them to quit their jobs and dedicate even more time to it.

 

3) Yes, you obviously have to know something about the creative field you're into.

 

4) Countries where people are more educated have more money and resources.

[current]

There are many , many , self educated people that are very brillant people .

Edited March 25, 2017 by current

[Turtle]

In the video Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson , the speaker repeatedly says something to the effect of 'in my opinion' and yet gives nothing but anecdotes in support of his claims. He also says formal education is an artifact of the 19th century and industrialism, yet he fabricates a scenario wherein 16th century Shakespeare is being scolded as a child in school. (Never mind that Shakespeare was creative as an adult.) Not very convincing.

 

Moreover, since no one's education can be undone, there is no way to demonstrate what their creativity would be without it. Education is not a monolith either as the speaker suggests (even though he gives examples of 'good' education) and while some education is better than other education, all societies throughout time educate their children. The 'no fear of being wrong' aspect of creativity the speaker ascribes to children is also a danger, as for example a child's inexperience in eating wild plants, climbing high, or venturing into water, or inability to read a 'danger' sign.

[Turtle]

There are many , many , self educated people that are very brillant people .

So what? There are also many, many, many brilliant formally educated people. Maybe they were smart and creative enough to recognize the value of formal education.

[A-wal]

In the video Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson , the speaker repeatedly says something to the effect of 'in my opinion' and yet gives nothing but anecdotes in support of his claims. He also says formal education is an artifact of the 19th century and industrialism, yet he fabricates a scenario wherein 16th century Shakespeare is being scolded as a child in school. (Never mind that Shakespeare was creative as an adult.) Not very convincing.

The education system in it's current form is a result of 19th century industrialism, as in treating all students as the same and putting them the zombification production line so that they can be effective remedial workers rather than freethinking creative people. And yes, not everyone who goes through the system (Shakespeare didn't go through the same system though) gets lobotomised.

 

Moreover, since no one's education can be undone, there is no way to demonstrate what their creativity would be without it. Education is not a monolith either as the speaker suggests (even though he gives examples of 'good' education) and while some education is better than other education, all societies throughout time educate their children. The 'no fear of being wrong' aspect of creativity the speaker ascribes to children is also a danger, as for example a child's inexperience in eating wild plants, climbing high, or venturing into water, or inability to read a 'danger' sign.

All of the developed world has basically the same broken education system. Instilling fear of being wrong in the context of education is not the same as teaching them common sense life skills like "eating wild plants, climbing high, or venturing into water, or inability to read a 'danger' sign". What a truly ridiculous comparison to make!

 

So what? There are also many, many, many brilliant formally educated people. Maybe they were smart and creative enough to recognize the value of formal education.

Maybe they were smart enough and creative enough to see the danger and take steps to avoid the mental conditioning that can result from it. Besides, I think you might have a very warped view of what constitutes brilliance.

 

 

I love with a passion learning about things that I find interesting but I don't think I ever felt that way in school because it's presented in such a dull and lifeless way that it makes learning tedious. If it's boring then very little sticks but if it's done right it's practically unforgettable. Most of them go into it with so much potential and they come out half braindead (the left half). The only people who really benefit from it are the ones that were already half braindead to begin with.

 

This is a huge problem and is something I've always felt very strongly about. It was music to my ears when I saw his talk. He says everything that I've been saying for decades only he says it much better and people take notice because he's been through the system. He seemed like a genuinely nice bloke as well when I saw him in person. The problem is made worse by the fact that the people who have been negatively affected by it can't even see that there's a problem.

[A-wal]

Look how expressive kids and creative people are compared to most highly educated people, you can see straight away that they're half dead and are only able to perform analytical computation type tasks. Put them in a real world environment where they have to think on their feet or communicate effectively and they're lost. Most of them aren't capable of performing the vast majority of jobs because they've got no common sense.

Education should inspire students and make them want to learn more but it normally has the exact opposite effect. Growing up in the UK before the crash, further education would have been completely free for me but the time I left school you couldn't have paid me to go to college.

[Turtle]

Formal education, again, is not a monolithic/universal/worldwide thing as Robinson claims several times. One counter example is sufficient to contradict the claim and I can mention several. My community has Montessori schools wherein students set their own curriculum goals. Yes they are private, but they also provide scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids so it's not exclusive to the rich. My community also has magnet schools within the public system and these magnet schools have different foci such as technology and theatre arts. We also have homeschooling, and though the state has certain requirements for student assessments it is the parents who set the agenda and the environment. Seems reasonable to think parents, of all people, will do the utmost to foster their children's' creativity.

 

Beyond the educational structure, there is the matter of good teachers and not-so-good teachers and for the student this is a matter of chance.

 

Folks have both bad and good experiences in education whether in formal or informal settings and that's just a natural and expected outcome for any dynamic venue of human interaction. Making a broad brush claim that formal education is quashing creativity is simply not a supportable claim.

 

As to the OP question "What are the areas where kids are on par with adults?", music comes to mind. Particularly prodigies such as Mozart or Chopin. (See list of musical child prodigies @ Wiki for other examples) Note that even here, without formal education of some fashion these folks wouldn't have had the background to pursue their particular talents.

 

Creative people are, as creative people do.

[Turtle]

Look how expressive kids and creative people are compared to most highly educated people, you can see straight away that they're half dead and are only able to perform analytical computation type tasks. ...

Such claims require support beyond anecdotal asides. Can you cite any actual studies supporting your anecdotes?

[Turtle]

... 

Maybe they were smart enough and creative enough to see the danger and take steps to avoid the mental conditioning that can result from it. Besides, I think you might have a very warped view of what constitutes brilliance. ...

You have no basis to make such a judgment inasmuch as I have made no statements of my view of brilliance. I merely repeated the term that current did when I responded.

 

'Brilliance', as 'creativity', are subjective terms and very much in the eye of the beholder. In any accord, a brilliant or creative thief, is still a thief after all.

[A-wal]

Formal education, again, is not a monolithic/universal/worldwide thing as Robinson claims several times. One counter example is sufficient to contradict the claim and I can mention several. My community has Montessori schools wherein students set their own curriculum goals. Yes they are private, but they also provide scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids so it's not exclusive to the rich. My community also has magnet schools within the public system and these magnet schools have different foci such as technology and theatre arts. We also have homeschooling, and though the state has certain requirements for student assessments it is the parents who set the agenda and the environment. Seems reasonable to think parents, of all people, will do the utmost to foster their children's' creativity.

Yes there's homeschooling and specialist schools like drama schools (he even spoke about a dance school) but he's talking about the standard education system. Your critiques make very little sense. You're not a very good advert for the formal education system are you?

 

Folks have both bad and good experiences in education whether in formal or informal settings and that's just a natural and expected outcome for any dynamic venue of human interaction. Making a broad brush claim that formal education is quashing creativity is simply not a supportable claim.

Yes it is, and it's painfully obvious to most people. The fact that some people simply can't see it only confirms it for those that do.

 

Such claims require support beyond anecdotal asides. Can you cite any actual studies supporting your anecdotes?

:) Really? You shouldn't need to see a study to know that children and creative people are much more expressive, just talk to them. It's also very obvious that highly educated people tend to perform very badly in situations that you're not used to. I've even had bosses who refused to interview any college graduate because "they're fcuking useless".

 

'Brilliance', as 'creativity', are subjective terms and very much in the eye of the beholder. In any accord, a brilliant or creative thief, is still a thief after all.

Hey, don't diss thieves. Robin Hood was a thief. Thieves can be cool.