Talking to Children: A Pre-Holiday Guide

Regarding "convincing" children of things: this AI koan is relevant.

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.

“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied.

“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.

“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.

“Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.

“So that the room will be empty.”

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Children are input/output machines. What you put in, is what you get out. This is especially true of the younger ages. For example, an older child, say a 10 year old, already has 10 years of input going in, so it is much harder to work against all that previous input, than with a 3 year old.

Children's beliefs are being formed by their environment all the time. Every waking second, every personal interaction, is forming them into their future selves. You can either acknowledge this, and use it to your advantage to help them be the best future self they can be, OR you can say that it is "manipulative" and instead leave their formation up to chance.

For example, if I convince a child they like helping me cook, it certainly isn't for my benefit. Cooking takes three times as long, and causes more mess and trouble if you have a child "helping" you. You convince them they like cooking so that they grow up having a skill that is needed for coping in the world.

Also, in real life, the cartoon I convinced my charge that she like was "Higglytown Heroes", which I like because it shows that everyone in town is important in their own way. It was just less embarassing to admit that I like Kim Possible (which I like, but actually encourage kids away from) than that I like Higglytown Heroes. So yeah....not noticing my own signalling attempts, FTL.

Do you know if the liking is sincere?

IMO, telling them what they like/dislike does actually change their liking/disliking of an item/task, so long as that item was neutral to begin with. You can get them to LOVE something they used to LIKE, but not something they used to DISLIKE.

I strongly suspect that what's going on with "people who talk to children like they're adults" is that they talk to children like they're people.

Strongly seconded. I've long been certain that this is the reason I get along so easily with that kids older than about 4. I listen to what they're saying, ask for more information about things they're interested in, and enthuse about things I'm interested in. In general, I talk to them like I'd talk to friendly acquaintances.

From what I recall of childhood, people who aren't obviously disingenuous towards kids are rare, and precious to kids.

I strongly suspect that what's going on with "people who talk to children like they're adults" is that they talk to children like they're people.

Anecdote: sure works for me. I have zero personal interest in sticker dolly books or drawing pictures of dinosaurs, but my 4yo sure does and she lights up when I participate in her projects in a way that takes her interests seriously. We are blatantly and consciously encouraging her interests in art and music, and she's getting commendations at school for it. She's even allowed to touch mum's Wacom graphics tablet ...

Before I even read your comment I was going to post almost exactly the same story.

I was about 7 years old and I was praised by the teacher to the other kids in the class as an example of the value of hard work. "Listen how well Apprentice just read this page for us. You know how he can do this so well? Because he carefully practices the assigned reading at home every time. You guys need to do that too."

This was wrong but I didn't correct the teacher and, like you, I felt guilty about the lie by omission. I hadn't actually read this text at home before the class - nor did I ever practice reading the assigned texts at home. I was a fluent reader before I started school and there was no point in me practicing at home.

Throughout compulsory education, the teachers made efforts like this to instill in students the idea of "you have good results in school if and only if you do hard work". This did not fit with my experience but it seemed to be accepted by some of the other kids. I think they looked at it like this: "I put much more effort into schoolwork than I should like but Apprentice still gets far better results than I do. He must be truly torturing himself with work, I'm glad I'm not him." When I tried to tell them that I didn't spend that much effort on homework they thought I was lying for some bizarre reason.

My current model of good results in school is that it is a factor of: a) general intellectual ability, b) interest in the subject matter, c) discipline and diligence. Throughout compulsory education I had strong a), strong b) and a mediocre c). That was plenty to be on top of a class drawn from a random sample of the population. Throughout my educational path I've known people with various other permutations. In secondary school I knew a girl with strong a) and c) and (in most contexts) a weak b. She got good grades, slightly better than mine. I also remember a guy with so-so a) and b) and an extremely strong c). He got good grades, slightly worse than mine. But most people who get good grades aren't like that.

So, what should we tell kids? It is certainly a true and useful thing to know that disciplined hard work can get you good results. It's also useful to know that being passionate about something makes it much easier to become good at it (it will still take work but it isn't hard work). Finally, it is true that general ability is important and varies a lot between people in a way that isn't particularly fair. Our society* will happily tell kids the first two things but is more ambivalent about the third. I think knowing it earlier on would have saved me from some weird doublethink and possibly enabled me to make some better decisions. But maybe more widespread dissemination of this fact would be overall harmful to society? I don't think so but I'm not sure.

* I mean modern Western society in general but I grew up in socialist / egalitarian Scandinavia in the 80s where obscurantism about the third fact may have been especially prevalent.

Yes: I think the point above was driving at the 'praise effort not talent', which I buy, but praising effort where there was none can be counter-productive. Possibly with younger children they will actually associate the success with 'working hard' or 'talent' based on how you present it to them, but I don't think that works with older children or adults. There you'd have to actually identify what was hard work and praise that more than talents: or where something involved both, focus on the work.

I don't understand, why guilt?

Would you be willing to describe the effect that had on you? If I had to guess, I'd guess that you ended up needing such praise to feel good about yourself, and that you ended up needing to live up to that praise. But it would help my understanding to read a true story.

.

Sign me up for the club.

How do those feel when one is doing them?

The OP is talking about very young children. Specifically, children so young that they don't have a meaningful choice about what clothes they wear.

I'll talk with my son about the possible existence of latent sexism in society and how he might react to it when he's old enough to understand. Since he's not yet two, I limit myself to not freaking out if he picks up and plays with a doll.

Why would I want my daughter to work hard at math and then miss a job offer to do math because a competing interviewer was epsilon better turned out?

This is a false contradiction. It is totally possible to dress well as a woman without being "girly" or "sexy." To the extent that woman are expect to put effort into dressing "feminine" when men are not expected to put in similar effort to appear "masculine" in order to achieve the same success, this is a bug and not a feature.

My parents also tried this quite a lot, and still do when they have the opportunity. I found that a statement of "you like/want X" caused me to have an opinion about X, I'm reasonably confident this caused me to have the opposite inclination at least as often as the intended one. I don't think there's an age limit on this tactic having some effect, though not necessarily the intended one (though there is at least some projection from my own experience going on there, so discount accordingly).

Yes, there is definitely an age limit to where this has less effect, but I think it works a little bit even on adults. Then you're getting Dark Artsy.

The big point is that you can't get them to like something they already dislike, or vice versa. But you can get them from neutral to like/dislike.

For example, if she LOVES Wonderpets, then saying that she doesn't like Wonderpets is completely false, and ignored. But if she thinks Dora is decent, THEN saying that she loves Dora (maybe getting her some Dora games, if you REALLY want her to have that belief) is much more effective.

I am also somewhat dubious that people actually have any sort of innate reaction by gender to, say, pink frilly dresses specifically.

Read this. Make sure not to miss the picture of little Franklin Roosevelt in his frilly dress.

This seems to me roughly opposite to your earlier comment

I do not understand how you reached this conclusion. My earlier comment said that when people complement you (an adult), that you should accept their compliment. This post says that when you complement children, that you should do so in a way that is most beneficial to their development.

Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that these are opposite statements?

more specific information should be used to justify them. Yes, there is some evidence that it's better to praise children's work then innate explanations for their results, but it's pretty weak evidence

I specifically mention that this information is based on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and general knowledge. I agree that I would like more evidence. If you know of any, please share!

your link seems to claim the opposite about appearance: girls figure out what actions they can take to increase the compliments

I do not think that it is inconsistent to say that society teaches young girls that their appearances are of prime importance, so THEN girls take action to increase those complements. It is a cause and effect.

Think of it this way; if instead girls (and boys) grew up getting complements on their work-ethic, or on their , THEN they will still take action to increase those complements, but now those actions focus on , and not on looks.

I am downvoting your comment (I dislike random downvotes, so I try to "claim" mine), because I can't make any rational sense of it. But if you clarify so that I can understand your argument, I will upvote!

I don't think the author's OVERcompensating. There may come a time when little girls are insufficiently told that they look adorable, but I seriously doubt that today is that time, nor that we have happened to stumble through memetic evolution onto the exactly correct amount to be complimenting little girls on their looks.

My own take is that if this is a little girl you see a LOT of (like, say, your daughter) then you might occasionally congratulate them on looking nice (especially if you know that they DID put some effort into it), but as a random stranger operating on timeless decision theory, the author's advice is pretty sound.

(Edit: and no, you're not being dishonest by telling them the first thing you notice, any more than you'd be lying to refrain from telling a below average child that they are stupid or ugly when you first meet them)

You can certainly start by complimenting a girl's appearance (tends to improve the mood of a girl of any age)

From Lord Chesterfield, writing in 1747 (i.e. this advice is older than America), emphasis mine:

Women have, in general, but one object, which is their beauty; upon which, scarce any flattery is too gross for them to swallow. Nature has hardly formed a woman ugly enough to be insensible to flattery upon her person; if her face is so shocking, that she must in some degree, be conscious of it, her figure and her air, she trusts, make ample amends for it. If her figure is deformed, her face, she thinks, counterbalances it. If they are both bad, she comforts herself that she has graces; a certain manner; a 'je ne sais quoi,' still more engaging than beauty. This truth is evident, from the studied and elaborate dress of the ugliest women in the world. An undoubted, uncontested, conscious beauty, is of all women, the least sensible of flattery upon that head; she knows that it is her due, and is therefore obliged to nobody for giving it her. She must be flattered upon her understanding; which, though she may possibly not doubt of herself, yet she suspects that men may distrust.

You mis-quoted my post (I never wrote the second part of your "quote"), and I think that your paraphrase does not accurately represent the point I am trying to make.

A better paraphrase would be: "The world tells girls that their looks are more important than anything, and you shouldn't reinforce this belief."