[dimask]

I work in human developmental research and have never heard or read anybody make such claims that you consider "bog standard child development science", and some of what you say are definitely not supported by the current understanding of human development.

For example

> child language development milestones that are waymarked by age down to the month

is totally false. It is quite known that developmental milestones are acquired by children in different times and even in different orders and sequences. This "down to the month" is pure non-sense for most of the milestones.

Young children are better served to be guided by their own curiosity, interest and exploration drives and which parents feed with variable inputs and building upon, rather than by anxious parents feeding them with whatever terabytes of exploitation-intended information they think is gonna "serve to maximize IQ".

Yes, reading to kids in certain ways (using numbers/spatial relationships/theory of mind stuff/interactively) has been found in some studies to correlate with certain outcomes but there is nothing to suggest a totally linear relationship such that talking to a kid 24/7 since the womb is gonna produce the next Einstein.

[mrangle]

For Pete's sake.

I'm a clinician who works in child development pathology, which is why I commented. You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Your unprofessional hyperbole and willful misconstrual of clear statements aside.

>"have never heard or read anybody make such claims that you consider "bog standard child development science"

Reconsider your profession.

>This "down to the month" is pure non-sense for most of the milestones

"Most", you say? Which is it? Are some milestones down to the month and some not? Or are all not down to the month?

"Down to the month" is shorthand for a normative developmental window. So "down to a limited window of months, which together comprise a large percentage of the child's age in months".

Is that better meaningful communication on a public board? Some would instead say "too long and unnecessary". Avoiding such communication being a core communication skill. Or perhaps you are too, say, "bothered" to be able to allow for meaningful communication devices in public. Get a grip.

Those limited, often overlapping, windows assist in defining service eligibility. Overlapping means that differently ordered milestones are possible. Your "different times" of milestone acquisition is limited to the very limited normative windows. Per both the standardized clinical knowledge body and each individual State that adopts those standards. As an expert, you'd know that all normed measurements are subject to statistical deviations in development but sure as heck are also limited by the same. This is super basic. Also, it is generally unnecessary to explain normed scores, normed milestones, and basic statistical concepts on HN. But thanks for the variously pedantic and wrong corrections.

>Young children are better served to be guided by their own curiosity, interest and exploration drives and which parents feed with variable inputs and building upon,

"Variable inputs" is too vague as to be meaningless as an argument. "Building upon" generally refers to scaffolding, which is a single tool used in certain circumstances or when otherwise appropriate. Beyond that, who said that implied basic interaction / play techniques are excluded?

I'm speaking of total language exposure over years, from a host of sources.

"better served" is unprofessional and unclear language. If you mean to say that child curiosity and interest should replace talking and reading to them as much as possible, then you are dead wrong and should reconsider your line of work. However, the reality is that these are not mutually exclusive activities and so at the least we can conclude that your correction is unnecessary (and weird). Many if not most children crave more such interaction than they receive.

>rather than by anxious parents

Who said anything about anxiety? Speaking and reading to children is a natural activity. Some parents do it more than others. Some parents neglect it more than is healthy for a child's development. The constant being that more of it is better for development. If you are trying to argue that point, I'll move on from "find a new line of work" to "I don't believe you in your statement about your line of work".

>feeding them with whatever terabytes of exploitation-

"Terabytes of exploitation"? What? You don't work in child development research, at least not in any meaningful way.

>intended information they think is gonna "serve to maximize IQ".

Its not debatable that maximizing language input, from an early age, maximizes developmental potential. That doesn't mean, nor did I imply, that parents need to do anything but the best that they can in providing children with language stimulation. That means being at least superficially aware of and respecting the relevant developmental science, and trying to meet the best standard that they can in light of it. You seem to have an issue reading extremes into things , which in turn leads to your use of truly bizarre language.

[therobot24]

> I'm a clinician who works in child development pathology, which is why I commented.

sounds like you take research at it's word instead of understanding the fundamental ideas and concepts that are being explored...classic white coat thinks the book is right and everyone else is wrong

[dimask]

I do not think that such a conversation is done in productive way (especially when cutting phrases in half to make them appear making no sense) but will try get a couple of points across:

- I interpreted the comment in the context of the answer to a specific article/interview. In the linked content, for example, there is a video of a 2.5yo doing a "flashcard class". While I do not think there is anything inherently harmful or anything, it is not a way that 2.5yos learn about the world, and even if it is not harmful it is not needed for 2.5yos to sit on a chair and doing a class to learn about the world. Their curiosity and own exploration drive is enough for pulling them into learning, and this is what I mean by parents should feed, ie see what their kids are most curious and interested in and feeding them inputs to that direction. The comment you answered to was referring to this article, and I interpreted your answer in that context. If I misinterpreted anything, I can only see the context that is shared here, not in your mind.

- To reiterate and clarify more on the context, "Speaking and reading to children is a natural activity" is _not_ what OP was about. What OP was about is applying a specific strategy for kids at 2+ years, ie to learn to read using a specific exploitation-based approach. If that is all you meant by your previous comment, then you may want to reread the comment you answered to from that perspective. Nobody here is saying "leave the kids do what they want and do not care about interacting with them much/talking around them" that you seem to suggest. When I say parents building upon kids' own curiosity and exploration drive I mean seeing what sort of inputs their kids become more curious and interested in at a certain time and feeding them inputs like that. When a kid starts being interested in sounds and music, feed them with sounds and music and sound/music-related books and toys. There is no handbook that is gonna say which month and day exactly this should happen for a specific kid.

- I may miss a lot of knowledge indeed, but I still find setting goals of "maximising language exposure" and "maximising IQ" weird and unclear. No, I have never read or heard this way of approaching development and learning. Parents doing their best and being mindful of the importance of language exposure is different than "maximising" anything. Maximising with respect to which parameters? Even defining this as an optimisation problem, any complex optimisation problem like this is a tradeoff between different parameters and outcomes. What happens to the other parameters and outcomes when you optimise on just one?

- If "you do not speak the jargon" is what you prefer to focus, just say that and any more discussion will not be needed.