Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 24, 2013 3:34 (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9312104) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > The monkey sense is important? > > Try this instead... > > "Math smart kids show their gift early, even with > primitive tasks like comparing quantities and > counting." > > "Music smart kids show their gift early, even with > primitive tasks, like clapping and singing." > > "Sports smart kids show their gift early, even with > primitive tasks, like running and catching." > > The list goes on. > In other words, to put it most simply: "Smart kids show their 'smarts' early".
But that has NEVER been denied!!
I don't believe it is denied in the article quoted. The *underlying* issues are quite different, which evidently you appear to be unable to perceive.
I have a couple of questions.
If the truth (the whole truth and the only truth) is contained in your assertion viz. > > "Math smart kids show their gift early, even with > primitive tasks like comparing quantities and > counting." > why then do you feel that:
"Children have to be PUSHED to learn math (and everything else)"??? [The assertion seems to be the core of 'The RH Teaching Philosophy'].
It strikes me that there are some serious contradictions here. There are other contradictions. > > Even you, especially you, must see the fallacy of > making monkey-sense "important" in all this. > > The key to these things isn't primitive senses. It's > the gift, which is much bigger than those primitive > tasks. > Could you possibly specify this *gift* a little more?
As observed, I don't believe it is claimed that monkeys would learn advanced mathematics. (The underlying issues are somewhat different).
It is my understanding that scientifically we know rather little about what motivates children (or adults, for that matter) to exert themselves to learn anything.
Various 'precursors to motivation' are believed to have been identified. But rather little is actually *known* to science about human motivations - except that (in my opinion at least) "Operant Conditioning" has been thoroughly discredited - through traces of it seem to remain in your "PUSHING" theories.
In all of this foncusion, "Maslow's Theories of Needs" do appear to indicate possible ways forward - but we still have very little that is scientifically known.
The "PUSHING" theory of learning" that you have fervently espoused appears, to me at least, to be somewhat like Hugh Lofting's fabulous "Pushme Pullyou" beast.
I do believe that we do need to learn how to 'ENCOURAGE' children (and adults, for that matter) to learn. ['Great' teachers seem to know how to do that quite effectively].
If ENCOURAGEMENT is done effectively, then children (and adults, for that matter) may well PUSH themselves to get themselves over the many difficulties they will encounter in learning anything that's new/unfamiliar.
I.e, Effective 'ENCOURAGEMENT' provided may well "CONTRIBUTE TO" stimulate the learners to do the needed PUSHING of themselves to put forth the quite sizable intellectual effort of learning. The 'desire to learn' comes from within, not because of any 'PUSHING'. > > Now, when you read this, you might (if you are lucky) > think "Yeah, that is be a much simpler explanation. > How come that isn't what is being written?" > > The answer to this is that the "science" of your > noble profession is so infected and rotten with > politics, it isn't even rational anymore. > Rationality is founded in 'PUSHING'???
When you read the above, you might (if you are lucky)...
(Actually, it is not really about 'luck': it is the scientific system of learning how to look at available evidence in the real world, and then doing appropriately. The 'luck' lies elsewhere).