= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Raising numerate children - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
Oh I didn't stop at "because people want it" on the first round. I did continue answering that people feel this and that way. But you cannot explain psychology too deeply to a five year old - there is just not enough terminology you can build on (and using to detached words will not do). So you are bound to appeal to empathy (which children have) and the second time around the answer is really "don't you feel that way too?".
As for the physics. The answer is not litereally "physics" but physics at a level where you also have no more words you can build on. There is a point where analogy to waves can get you only so far. Sure sometime the correct terminology has to be used. And a why game can be such a point. But then this really leaves the "and why that" chain and goes into story mode or experiment mode or physical phenomenon mode.
There is a difference between saying "because that's just how it is" (semantic stop sign) and saying "because of reasons that you can't understand yet, but will when you grow up". How do you make sure you are saying the second, and do you think your children understand that?
Because I do not really stop at that point. I may stop in the chain of a why game. But the topics will come up again and again in different locations. For example when my sons ask how many is "million times million times million times million" I will not just answer "septillion" (*) but e.g. try to illustrate this with an example like "water particles within a spoonful of water". Or if we heat sugar in a pan to make caramel I might note that the sugar partical hpentagons break up or form new structures. Or if we speak about respiration I will (building on oxidaition in fire) to explain that the lung equalizes oxygen and CO2 levels of air and blood.
Now I'm venturing into off-topic territory, but:
I didn't know that. German is my own native language (and AFAIK many others work the same). I'm not very good with large numbers (I usually count them: "million, milliard, billion, billiard..."), so that helps.
It is easy. For example Avogadros number is roughly 10^-24 (for the purpose of estimating numbers of particles in natural phenomena) thus 24=4∙6 thus million^4 thus "Quadrillion" in German. And one googol is 10^100 and 100 = 16∙6+3+1 thus 10 "Sedezilliarden" (from 16=sedecem) albeit all this doesn't work in English at least not so easily.
Eventually you do need to come to a stop sign, because you shouldn't always ask 'why' one more time even though you could.
Once you've gotten down to bedrock physics seems like a good time to stop. There are better wordings than the one you provided.