Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In general I agree but

  > Indeed. Kids did not evolve to learn things because they would be useful years down the road. But they did evolve to inhale knowledge at very high rates wherever it extends their capabilities in the moment.
I strongly disagree with this. Children play. Most animals play. It is not hard to see how the skills learned through play lead to future utility despite potentially none at the time. We invent new games, new rules, and constantly imagine new worlds. The skills gained from these often have no utility beyond that that is self-constructed. Though many do have future rewards. I think we often miss those though because that path is through generalization. Learning how to throw a ball can help with learning physics, writing, driving, and much more. They don't perfectly transfer but it'd be naive to conclude that there aren't overlaps.

I think the truth is that as long as we are unable to predict the future, we really can't predict what skills will be useful and what specific knowledge should be pursued. We can do this in a more abstract sense as we can better predict the near future than far but that also means we should learn creativity and abstraction, as these allow us to adapt to changes. And that is why I believe we evolved these methods, and why you see things like play in most creatures.



> I strongly disagree with this. Children play. Most animals play.

I am not arguing against this. On the contrary, I agree with this completely.

Pairing the opportunity to learn and use highly general long term knowledge, toward progression in their own intrinsic interests (crafting, whatever) is the point I am making.

The alternative, a long line of math for math's sake, which neglects to harness and support each child's need and motivation to continually advance their own natural interests in all kinds of idiosyncratic directions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: