Entries Tagged 'NurtureSchlock' ↓

Examining the science in chapter 10 completes this discussion of how philosophy provides better guidance than social science. The studies covered in this chapter inform parents of which behaviors, methods, and materials “effectively” foster language development.

We must first distinguish between social scientific “effectiveness,” and aesthetic “appreciation.” The second is essential to all education, the first is peripheral. This is especially true for parents. Which do children need more–parents who are effective, or parents who are appreciative?

I can’t cite social science findings to support the central role of appreciation in the language development of children, but I can state my premise up front. Then we can see how it holds up to the science in chapter 10. Here it is:

Those who look at teaching and learning through an aesthetic lens believe children develop language as parents interact with them in appreciative ways (e.g. surprise, wonder, awe, satisfaction, encouragement, support, challenge, comfort, touch, and even praise, to name a few.)

Let’s look at chapter 10 to see what the research says. Does it offer insights that contradict or go beyond this?
Continue reading →

The authors’ Acknowledgments begin:

We wish to thank Adam Moses and Hugo Lindgren at New York Magazine for encouraging us to “geek out” in our stories, trusting that readers would be turned on, not turned off, by the depth of the science we covered. (p. 241)

I am not surprised readers are “turned on” by social science. It is another example of our aphilosophical society. When I remind teachers and administrators that their own philosophy of education is the most powerful driver of their work; and when I tell them findings of psychological, sociological, and educational studies address the periphery of their work; it does not take long before they once again ask, “What does the research say about best practices?” They have been taught to believe in the social science improvement paradigm, even though few of them have ever applied research findings to their practice, or even know what that looks like. I don’t know what it looks like, either.

This blog uses the social science described in NurtureShock’s chapter 1 to argue that philosophy provides better child rearing guidance than either old or new social science. NurtureSchlock, Part 3 does the same with the science described in chapter 10. Chapters 1 and 10 are examples of how the book uses “the fascinating new science of children to reveal just how many of our bedrock assumptions about kids can no longer be counted on” (p. 6). Is this new science really so fascinating?
Continue reading →

The bookstore had 50% off and NurtureShock was getting rave reviews.

The Introduction explains the title:

“Nurture shock” as the term is generally used, refers to the panic–common among new parents–that the mythical fountain of knowledge is not magically kicking in at all.

This book will deliver a similar shock–it will use the fascinating new science of children to reveal just how many of our bedrock assumptions about kids can no longer be counted on.

The central premise of this book is that many of modern society’s strategies for nurturing children are in fact backfiring — because key twists in the science have been overlooked.

The resulting errant assumptions about child development have distorted parenting habits, school programs, and social policies. They affect how we think about kids, and thus how we interpret child behavior and communicate with the young. The intent of this book is not to be alarmist, but to teach us to think differently–more deeply and clearly–about children. Small corrections in our thinking today could alter the character of society long-term, one future citizen at a time. (pp. 6-7)

This book shocked me; but not with the idea that some social science findings are naive, and others are enlightening. I was shocked that the authors don’t see that, just as “key twists” were overlooked in interpretations of yesterday’s studies, “key twists” are waiting around the corner for today’s findings.  The authors came to the wrong conclusion from their descriptions of wrong conclusions.
Continue reading →