The following is an article on a report to The American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Basically what it is pointing out is that the more you talk and read to a child from a very early age the more they will develop intellectually.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21596923-how-babbling-babies-can-boost-their-brains-beginning-was-word

What if we just stuck kids in boxes with a bunch of automated systems to take care of them and a bunch of monitors and speakers to continuously read and talk to them?  Could we mass produce super smart kids?

I guess you have to hand it to researchers for pursuing the obvious. As if NOT reading to babies and NOT engaging them in any way might also help them intellectually. I do think, as Dead Mony suggests, that parents can go overboard, like with all the Baby Einstein crap. There are so many other things that bring success or failure to kids that focusing solely on intellect seems to me to be a mistake.

What will be curious is what kind of stimulation/interaction will be developed with tablets.

There is no escaping the fact that there are bad parents, bad teachers and bad schools.

And even good teachers cannot be around 24/7.  So since 32 gig can hold 30,000 books the only real issue is what to load on the tablets.  What is Good Educational software?  Do we even know how to develop it yet?

psik

garythehuman - 25 February 2014 02:47 PM

The following is an article on a report to The American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Basically what it is pointing out is that the more you talk and read to a child from a very early age the more they will develop intellectually.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21596923-how-babbling-babies-can-boost-their-brains-beginning-was-word

Nonsense as usual. Poor kids know less words? Well, who could have guessed?

What if we just stuck kids in boxes with a bunch of automated systems to take care of them and a bunch of monitors and speakers to continuously read and talk to them?  Could we mass produce super smart kids?

It might be possible but the media at hand is being utilized more for entertainment than serious learning, e.g. Kids now watch on the average 28-34 hours of television plus the use of media games via Xbox and Playstation. These are often used as babysitting devises rather than stimulating learning, so no super geniuses, well maybe a few if we could get them to watch the new Cosmos series airing this month.

Cap’t Jack

garythehuman - 25 February 2014 02:47 PM
The following is an article on a report to The American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Basically what it is pointing out is that the more you talk and read to a child from a very early age the more they will develop intellectually.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21596923-how-babbling-babies-can-boost-their-brains-beginning-was-word

Nonsense as usual. Poor kids know less words? Well, who could have guessed?

Why would you consider this nonsense George? What about the “wolf children” Pinker uses as an example? Learning to speak an read a language before puberty is the key to intellectual development.

Cap’t Jack

What does that have it do with any of this?

As far as this study goes, if you don’t control for genetic influence you got nothing. I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to understand. Repeat the same test using twins and let’s see what you get…

It has everything to do with the article if that is your meaning. The example I mentioned correlates to the article which is BTW an excerpt of the study on the effects of parental participation of early childhood communication. It was a six year study involving forty two families from various economic backgrounds and the results show a marked difference in the ability of children to accumulate and understand words. You can read the full text here then decide for yourself:

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/hart.cfm

Cap’t Jack

George - 01 March 2014 12:37 PM

What does that have it do with any of this?

As far as this study goes, if you don’t control for genetic influence you got nothing. I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to understand. Repeat the same test using twins and let’s see what you get…

George I don’t know if you realize it or not but you are basically saying that if you had a set of twins and taught one twin to read and
kept the other twin isolated from any literacy training both twins would develop the same ability to read and write at the same time and to the same ability.

George - 01 March 2014 12:37 PM

What does that have it do with any of this?

As far as this study goes, if you don’t control for genetic influence you got nothing. I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to understand. Repeat the same test using twins and let’s see what you get…

Genetics account for everything, of course. 

asanta - 01 March 2014 07:11 PM

George - 01 March 2014 12:37 PM

What does that have it do with any of this?

As far as this study goes, if you don’t control for genetic influence you got nothing. I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to understand. Repeat the same test using twins and let’s see what you get…

Genetics account for everything, of course. 

It probably does.

Researchers don’t need identical-twin studies to prove their conclusions, only a large enough study population and proper control of the relevant factors in the two groups. Our resident nihilist’s argument is like saying that public opinion polling is only reliable if the population samples are limited to identical twins.

Dead Monky - 27 February 2014 09:42 AM

What if we just stuck kids in boxes with a bunch of automated systems to take care of them and a bunch of monitors and speakers to continuously read and talk to them?  Could we mass produce super smart kids?

Wouldn’t happen if you stuck them in boxes.  What you would get are potential sociopaths who have never experienced human interaction or loving attention.

Lois