"Kids are dumb." Agree or Disagree?

[FaithlessThinker]

[...] I do know it's easier to teach a child who isn't good at an instrument to eventually become good than an adult, though it generally takes longer just cause, ya know, kids are dumb.

Emphasis is mine. Original statement quoted from here.

I do not agree to the underlined statement. Kids are actually quite smart to me. Smart in the sense that they are quick in learning, are able to discern better, are not limited by social norms or "accepted" ways of thinking, are adventurous and daring, and such qualities.

Do you agree or disagree? Discuss your reasons.

If this has been discussed before, please refer me. Searching for a topic on this seems difficult as the choice of keywords is vast.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

[...] I do know it's easier to teach a child who isn't good at an instrument to eventually become good than an adult, though it generally takes longer just cause, ya know, kids are dumb.

Emphasis is mine. Original statement quoted from here.

I do not agree to the underlined statement. Kids are actually quite smart to me. Smart in the sense that they are quick in learning, are able to discern better, are not limited by social norms or "accepted" ways of thinking, are adventurous and daring, and such qualities.

Do you agree or disagree? Discuss your reasons.

If this has been discussed before, please refer me. Searching for a topic on this seems difficult as the choice of keywords is vast.

Well this is generaly true that kids do infact learn faster from the world than older people, but that has to do mostly with the evolution of man.

When a human baby is born its first priority is to learn from its enviroment .Babies cant immidiatly stand up on all 2 and follow its parents around.This is,as i said due to the evolution of man.Young human Organisms understand that they are mostly in safety so their first priority is to learn from the world instead of trying to immidiatly walk and follow its insticts.

On the other 99% of mamals, when born,immidiatly manage to walk on all 4 or 2 in a a couple of minutes.They need to do that too insure their survival from predators.The also hit puberty much faster than humans do because they need to reproduce in order to create offsprings and to pass on their genes to the next generation.

So in short, Humans until they hit puberty are lazy and try to examine their enviroments instead of trying to protect themselfs
while Other mamals try to protect them selfs from the world and follow their insticts.

 

[lrkun]

I disagree if the definition of dumb is such (# S: (adj) dense, dim, dull, dumb, obtuse, slow (slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity) "so dense he never understands anything I say to him"; "never met anyone quite so dim"; "although dull at classical learning, at mathematics he was uncommonly quick"- Thackeray; "dumb officials make some really dumb decisions"; "he was either normally stupid or being deliberately obtuse"; "worked with the slow students").

Because according to TheGreekDollMaker, (Well this is generaly true that kids do infact learn faster from the world than older people, but that has to do mostly with the evolution of man.

When a human baby is born its first priority is to learn from its enviroment .Babies cant immidiatly stand up on all 2 and follow its parents around.This is,as i said due to the evolution of man.Young human Organisms understand that they are mostly in safety so their first priority is to learn from the world instead of trying to immidiatly walk and follow its insticts.

On the other 99% of mamals, when born,immidiatly manage to walk on all 4 or 2 in a a couple of minutes.They need to do that too insure their survival from predators.The also hit puberty much faster than humans do because they need to reproduce in order to create offsprings and to pass on their genes to the next generation.)

Therefore, kids are not dumb.

 

[Laurens]

Some kids are, some kids aren't. It depends on the individual.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Some kids are, some kids aren't. It depends on the individual.

Actually before we can argue about that we need to define ''Dumb''.

Theres a difference between being Dumb or Being Uneducated.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I think the correct term would be "ignorant".

That's why they don't make the same cognitive connections in life as we adults do. They still lack the frame of reference for the world around them; they still need to learn one.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Children do not have fully developed brains, and have not been fully socialized, so they often appear inept.

That said, they are actually quite adept at absorbing new information; more so than most adults.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Actually before we can argue about that we need to define ''Dumb''.

Theres a difference between being Dumb or Being Uneducated.

I think we will have to wait upon Unwardil to reply and state how he defines 'dumb' in his statement "kids are dumb."

But yes, I agree that being ignorant/uneducated and being dumb are two different things.

Some kids are, some kids aren't. It depends on the individual.

As for the subjectivity of the matter, in this topic I'm arguing the general statement made: "kids are dumb" which implies that "ALL kids are dumb, without exception". I do understand that some (few?) kids are dumber and some are smarter than others. That's expected and I do not argue against that.

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, when I said children are dumb, I did mean by the standards of adults.

Children are computers with no software. They appear to run faster, simply because they haven't acquired the software to actually do anything yet, but man can they do nothing at above benchmark rates! The more software you cram onto a hard drive the longer it takes the hard drive to find what it wants and if you don't constantly check for viruses, nasty little add ware crops up now and then (I'm think of these are bad habits for this metaphor) but even so, this computer can now alternately check email, correct spelling, search for crap on google, play empire total war (albeit not at Optimum efficiency) and generally do useful things. Sure, it doesn't run quite as fast as when it was new, but it can do a whole lot more.

Hence Children are dumb. Full of potential, but potential is for the future, in the present, they're dumb.

 

[Jotto999]

Yes, when I said children are dumb, I did mean by the standards of adults.

Children are computers with no software. They appear to run faster, simply because they haven't acquired the software to actually do anything yet, but man can they do nothing at above benchmark rates! The more software you cram onto a hard drive the longer it takes the hard drive to find what it wants and if you don't constantly check for viruses, nasty little add ware crops up now and then (I'm think of these are bad habits for this metaphor) but even so, this computer can now alternately check email, correct spelling, search for crap on google, play empire total war (albeit not at Optimum efficiency) and generally do useful things. Sure, it doesn't run quite as fast as when it was new, but it can do a whole lot more.

Hence Children are dumb. Full of potential, but potential is for the future, in the present, they're dumb.

So then, your definition of dumb is not having much experience or skill learned? That's a a bad definition. Usually when people say "dumb", they are talking about the person's fluid intelligence, and general intelligence. Not whether or not you've picked up the skills an adult has. I think the word "dumb" is better saved for people who have fully developed brains but are dull anyway (which is plenty of people, no need to widen the fit for children too). Especially since it's a pejorative.

But wait a second! This isn't what you said before, in the original quote.

I do know it's easier to teach a child who isn't good at an instrument to eventually become good than an adult, though it generally takes longer just cause, ya know, kids are dumb.

Here you are using "dumb" in reference to how well the person can learn to do a new task, like play an instrument. This is different from a measure of general intelligence. This is the building of a crystallized intelligence. So you seem to have internal inconsistencies in what you mean by "dumb".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
A child can have excellent fluid intelligence, but have very little crystallized intelligence due to having such limited experience. Your definition of "dumb" clearly isn't taking into account these distinctions.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Yes, when I said children are dumb, I did mean by the standards of adults.

Children are computers with no software. They appear to run faster, simply because they haven't acquired the software to actually do anything yet, but man can they do nothing at above benchmark rates! The more software you cram onto a hard drive the longer it takes the hard drive to find what it wants and if you don't constantly check for viruses, nasty little add ware crops up now and then (I'm think of these are bad habits for this metaphor) but even so, this computer can now alternately check email, correct spelling, search for crap on google, play empire total war (albeit not at Optimum efficiency) and generally do useful things. Sure, it doesn't run quite as fast as when it was new, but it can do a whole lot more.

Hence Children are dumb. Full of potential, but potential is for the future, in the present, they're dumb.

Actually when babies are born they are much closer to sosiopathic animals than humans.

During their stay at the mother womb the human embryo starts its transformation from an embryo to a human baby.Durin that transformation it develops many of its insticts and biological defenses and stractures.

So when it is born its essentially a human without inteligence, full of pure instict, sociopathic in nature.And that continues until puperty.
Until they aquire the nessecery knowlage on human intelect and sociatal rules.

Thats why when they are born they do not have blank state ( Tabula rasa ) an idea i do not believe in.Every Mamal that is born in this world is driven by instict which they develop in the womb until they are born.

Its not that Kids get easier viruses or that they dumb, its because they need to learn rules and things that are openly agaist their biological insticts (Dont forget humans are Animals [Homo Sapiens essentially Monkeys]).

Essentially its like trying to cram Windows Programs into Mac Computers.Its really hard and you need to reprogram one of the two to work.

 

[Unwardil]

Stuff

Just to explain my previous thing about teaching a child to eventually get good.

It takes a long time.

It takes a life time usually.

The difference is that once the child is an adult, they're going to be equipped with the tools to become a truly great musician if they so desire because you will have taught them how to play their instrument from very early on.

But an adult can learn those same skills in a year or two if they've got the time and inclination to do so.

"Ah ha, but what about those 7 year old Japanese children who play mozart concertos Unwardil?!" You may ask.

Ture, a child can become quite proficient at a task, but behind every one of them, you'll generally find a teacher and parents who have s rigorously coached them into exactly how the piece should be played, much like you've taught a robot to reproduce a piano solo from memory. Sure, it's a cool trick you've taught that child and when that child grows up, they're going to be well equipped to take those skills and do neat shit with them, but until they reach that state of cognition, they're just a dumb robot that does a cool trick.

 

[Jotto999]

In that example, adults "learn" faster at playing the instrument because they already have experience in music, usually. Adults have heard thousands of songs, have danced, probably a little singing, etc. Their brain has some things to fall back on when trying an instrument (or any new thing), even if they have never played before. Plus, they already have some developed coordination for moving their fingers, and things like that. A kid is learning it all from the beginning.

What you're saying is that the person who started the race years later is deficient in their ability to do the race.

As such, I hold the position that a pejorative word like "dumb" does not fit here.

 

[Unwardil]

The original meaning of the word dumb means "Is unable to speak".

I think that term very broadly applies to children who "Are not able to do X". Dumbness in the original sense is no comment upon an individual's intelligence, (though obviously it's a quick sidestep to infer that dumbness is equal to stupidity) after all, Stephen Hawking, without the use of his voice box, could be said to be dumb. Brain the size of a planet, but unable to speak.

This state very nicely describes children. Mountains of intelligence they may posses inpotentia, but broadly speaking, totally incapable of realizing any of it. Hence, dumb.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Yes, when I said children are dumb, I did mean by the standards of adults.

Children are computers with no software. They appear to run faster, simply because they haven't acquired the software to actually do anything yet, but man can they do nothing at above benchmark rates! The more software you cram onto a hard drive the longer it takes the hard drive to find what it wants and if you don't constantly check for viruses, nasty little add ware crops up now and then (I'm think of these are bad habits for this metaphor) but even so, this computer can now alternately check email, correct spelling, search for crap on google, play empire total war (albeit not at Optimum efficiency) and generally do useful things. Sure, it doesn't run quite as fast as when it was new, but it can do a whole lot more.

Hence Children are dumb. Full of potential, but potential is for the future, in the present, they're dumb.

Even keeping with your metaphor, the application of the word dumb in this instance is, well, dumb.

When I get a computer without software, I do not view it as dumb, but in a default state - it would be extraordinarily juvenile to view it thus. A dumb computer would be one that stacked it RAM on its CPU, or one in which you had to reinstall the OS each time you boot, or the tower was made from copper.

Hence uneducated != dumb.

 

[Unwardil]

Pretty sure I already addressed the main points of that in my follow up reply, however, I'll just add that I'm not talking about a person's knowledge or level of education as a level of intelligence.

Knowing more things doesn't make you more intelligent, being able to think about multiple things in more complicated ways makes you more intelligent. Education and experience are two ways of encouraging the growth of intelligence. Children have neither, they're unlikely to think in terribly complicated ways.

What makes children (broadly) less intelligent than adults is that they have not had the time to form the complex mental pathways of an adult brain.

To the race example again. Who is faster, an adult (25 to 45) or a child (under 10). Stupid question, obviously the adult, even a really out of shape adult has longer legs for a greater stride, much stronger leg muscles and greater energy output. There is no competition.

Also because I'm speaking in generalities here, I obviously mean average specimens. There are freaks in every category. A 6 year old Mozart is going to learn the violin faster than Stephen Hawking of any age because Mozart was a musical prodigy and Stephen Hawking lacks the physical abilities to actual hold the instrument. It is not a comment on the intelligence of either individual to say that.

 

[nemesiss]

one thing that is interesting where you can see the full potential of children is their ability to come up with idea's.
They had this experiment where they asked the question "of how many ways can you use a paperclip?" Kids in general could come up with way more solutions then parents, because they they didn't make assumptions which were didn't matter ( like size and material of the paperclip). they blame schooling for it, since in general you will be taught that there is only one solution for a question.
so basically were dumber down ourselves because we don't allow ourselves (and our children) to think outside the box, while thats the one thing that is needed to innovate.

another problem which has been tapped on us experience.
children will almost all trust what their parents tell them, hence the indoctrination of religion.
the problem in it that children have no skill and knowledge yet to differentiate between fiction and non-fiction.
and it can become a real problem if even at a later age, when they have learned how to make the distiction, but are unable because its hardwired into their brain. still a great example are those hijackers of 9-11, who were 100% convinced they'd go to heaven for killing infidels via martyrdom.

 

[Andiferous]

Kids "learn" and remember much better than adults, but I do think intelligence comparisons are a bit dumb themselves. I think that when people stop "learning" for whatever reason they do tend to stagnate, and this happens much more frequently in grown-ups.

 

[Unwardil]

My own personal experience has not been a case of 'Kids learn better' though. Not without parental involvement at any rate, but going on the average case (again, personal experience, in no way scientific) and the benchmark for learning speed being 'how quickly does an individual grasp the fundamentals to the point where they can apply those fundamentals independently of instruction from me' then it's the adults who are typically better at this.

The main difference is that if an Adult comes in starting hopeless, they generally don't improve much from that state, whereas the kids, if they actually stick at it eventually will get it, regardless of how little natural aptitude they begin with.

Also, in terms of memory, it really depends what you're asking the person to remember. Raw data, sure, the kid probably has an advantage just because of the relative emptiness of their brains, the old unclogged hard-drive remembers better and faster than the full one. But if it's something of a familiar formula, like a phone number or an address or something that the adult has a lot of experience in remembering well, the adult comes pre-equipped with a kind of compression algorithm for that kind of data.

I can't remember names for shit, never have been able to ever since I was a child, so there are any number of children who could probably out remember a list of names, but play me a tune once and I'll be able to sing it back to you with just a few minor variations of my own with an accuracy that most children would be unable to even comprehend because they're simply not trained and experienced in that kind of memory.

 

[lrkun]

Do genes play a factor with regard to a child's learning speed?