What children lose when their brains develop to fast

Q: At what age do you think a childs brain is developing fastest?

3 years. By 3 years of age a childs brain has around 1,000 trillion brain connections (synapses). The early years are a rapid period of brain development which can be fostered by positive relationships with parents and optimal community environments for families and children.

12/11/2021 6:15:00 PM

Table of Contents Show

Former Ohio State Buckeye Harry Miller shares his inspirational mental health journey
What happens when children's brains develop too quickly?
Can a child develop too fast?
At what age do you think a child's brain is developing fastest?
What are the factors that can deprive the child from brain development to happen?

Essay: Hardships that hasten children’s cognitive development can harm their prospects as adults, according to recent research. What they need is the safety to play and explore.

Adverse early experiences can make young minds inflexible, while a carefree childhood has clear cognitive benefits.

Dec. 9, 2021 12:42 pm ETThe great Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget used to talk about “the American question.” In the course of his long career, he lectured around the world, explaining how children’s minds develop as they get older. When he visited the U.S., someone in the audience was sure to ask, “But Prof. Piaget, how can we get them to do it faster?”

Today it’s no longer just impatient Americans who assume that faster brain and cognitive development is better. Across the globe, as middle-class “high investment” parents anxiously track each milestone, it’s easy to conclude that the point of being a parent is to accelerate your child’s development as much as possible. Both parents and policy makers increasingly push preschools to be more like schools.

Former Ohio State Buckeye Harry Miller shares his inspirational mental health journey

A night to inspire hope and resilience. Ohio State celebrated community members who are helping to change the face of mental health.One of those people was form Read more >>

When children loose a caregiver because they died of Covid the child brought home from school, that is hardship. Masks need to stay in schools to protect children. you don't say...

Nick Cannon’s 5-Month-Old Son, Zen, Has Died From Complications of a Brain TumorNick Cannon’s Youngest Child, 5-Month-Old Son Zen, Has Died Due to Brain Tumor Complications

How the Parental Brain DevelopsHere's how neurobiological, psychological, and social processes prepare our brains for the transition to parenthood, writes thetruedrdoom thetruedrdoom This is debatable considering some of the terrible parenting out there.

Nick Cannon defends returning to work days after the death of his 5-month-oldNick Cannon explained why he returned to work so soon after the death of his 5-month-old son Zen on Sunday. good luck Leave him alone ffs! Why is anyone questioning how someone grieves? Stop it.

A Visual Guide to Generalized Anxiety DisorderAre your worries normal or something more? WebMD's slideshow covers the symptoms and types of anxiety disorders, as well as the causes and successful treatments that allow you to thrive once again.

Beyoncé's daughters, Blue Ivy and Rumi, look identical in new pics with momBeyoncé's daughters, Blue Ivy and Rumi, look identical in new photos with mom Great shot! What about the Maxwell trial NBCNews ? Clothing only..

How Deadly Is the Omicron Variant, and Is It More Infectious Than Previous Variants?Experts stress that it's too early to tell, but that the variant is spreading fast.

Alison Gopnik Dec.announced his youngest child’s death on his show on Tuesday.parenthood , so I looked to the science on the parental brain to learn more..

9, 2021 12:42 pm ET The great Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget used to talk about “the American question.” In the course of his long career, he lectured around the world, explaining how children’s minds develop as they get older. Fighting back tears, he continued telling the story of his son’s life. When he visited the U. Examining the parental brain pregnancy and the early postpartum period.S. “One month was great., someone in the audience was sure to ask, “But Prof.

Piaget, how can we get them to do it faster?” Today it’s no longer just impatient Americans who assume that faster brain and cognitive development is better.” This content is imported from Instagram. For example, mothers actually show greater activity in their brains when looking at pictures of their baby smiling compared to other babies smiling (Kim, 2016). Across the globe, as middle-class “high investment” parents anxiously track each milestone, it’s easy to conclude that the point of being a parent is to accelerate your child’s development as much as possible. Both parents and policy makers increasingly push preschools to be more like schools. A post shared by NICK CANNON (@nickcannon) But around that time, Cannon and Zen’s mother, model Alyssa Scott, noticed that Zen had “real interesting breathing,” which they suspected could have been sinus issues or fluid in his lungs. To Read the Full Story . How much mothers' brains respond to their own baby’s cry has also been associated with how sensitive their parenting behavior is and their understanding of their baby’s mental state (Kim, 2016).

I've seen comments here about school (both successes and failures), limits on kids and aspects of learning. However, the article seems to be focusing on allowing a child to be a child. I have a reasonably high ACES score and while it's anecdotal on my experience, I can say for sure it affected my learning.

I needed to worry about adult aspects of living when I was very young. I was focused on staying alive and didn't have the capacity to learn the way I could have.

My partner is a teacher and I can say, she is regularly working with kids, families and different support groups to try to help kids be in a place to actually learn.

More info in this can be found at:

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/media-coverage/take-the-...

There are other notable effects of a high ACES score and being on the older side myself, I can add my anecdotal comment that I fit comfortably into my score.

A stress free life makes you cognitively and genetically stronger, at least according to this and the general conclusion of epigenics

There is no pride to be had from dealing with stress

So a carefree life it is

Seems like a timeless tale for parents to try to make that environment for their children and then not be able to relate

Stress is a strange thing though because short-term stress can be good for us whereas chronic stress generally isn't. Robert Sapolksy has written some interesting books on the subject.

I certainly don't think one should deliberately inflict stress on one's children, but I suspect experiencing brief mild adversity now and again helps to build resilience. I tend to veer on the side of trying to coach them through problems they encounter rather than using my powers as an adult to remove those problems.

Although I get that for modern developed society, I do think of the structure of a romanticized village like life in the right jungle environments or some very communal islands. With the right ecological stasis, entire generations of people just … live. Replicating that in more developed but adhoc society requires many orders of magnitude more resources, but opens up other pursuits that are beneficial.

When I’m around spiritual/hippie people, alot of them act like children, unadjusted for the demands of modern society, and I step back and think “why do I care?”. Mostly because they wont be able to adapt and execute well in other environments. But I can see a medium or balance that can be pursued as well.

Yes - I guess what we do as parents is prepare our children for the society they are going to enter and how to best do that depends on what that society is. Although I suspect other environments have different types of stresses, but perhaps less chronic ones. Many tribal societies have some sort of right of passage for males at adolescence which involves stress of some sort.

>When I’m around spiritual/hippie people, alot of them act like children, unadjusted for the demands of modern society, and I step back and think “why do I care?”.

One good reason to care is that adult children are an active liability in a functioning society:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/22/leftwi... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55957298 https://julesevans.medium.com/make-love-not-vaccines-why-are...

From the last link: "There is some evidence that people who have experienced childhood trauma are more likely to identify as ‘spiritual but not religious’. There’s also some evidence that people who have experienced trauma are likely to turn to spiritual practices and worldviews as a way of coping and recovering. That’s a good thing — but it makes some spiritual people prone to a spiky libertarianism if they feel judged, shamed or told what to do. In a triggered state, they divide people into Us versus Them, Light versus Darkness... Myths are useful sometimes, but if you always see the complexity of modern life through a Lord-of-the-Rings lens, you might not be much help to your culture."

I noticed that too, so many damaged/healing people in those “spiritual” communities, but I was refraining from the conclusion because I had begun to wonder if they were just more comfortable admitting it

Between noticing that and noticing that all the universe and energy talk is a proxy to shove Christianity down their throats, I find it strange and wonder if it is deliberate. Like many of the most obvious practioners will begin with being distinct from organized religion, offering a belief systems with no deity and the connectness of nature, but then get their followers with Christianity later. Clever, contrived.

Edit: from your third article

> “The other religious group that scores high in science-scepticism and anti-vaccine sentiment is white evangelicals.”

Okay there it is, thats because its the same people.

If the research showed that Adverse Childhood Events led to better outcomes in the people who experienced them, would we be reading news articles that say so?

I've certainly seen articles that have the overcame adversity elements; however, I suspect, a deeper look at the individuals history either includes significant intervention or are an outlier for some other reason.

As far as research, I have yet to find anything that supports positive outcomes to significant adversity.

Conclusion isn't supported by evidence.

Evidence cited shows kids need diverse experience. That's very different.

Yeah. From my experience, when I see my daughter get stuck in a dead end on something, it's much more effective to move her onto something completely different until she's ready for the thing she got stuck on before. Forcing her to succeed at a task just reinforces frustration.

Maybe that's why unstructured play is important. They explore and figure stuff out on their own.

I think that might be the biggest sin with today's school system. Big penalties for mistakes and optimisation for perfection (math and spelling tests). In reality you "want" to make mistakes, because that means you took risk. They are inevitable. Once you internalize it it's quite liberating. How quickly and well you recover from mistakes is much more important.

Where I live, There's literally zero penalties for mistakes, at least up to highschool.

I'm sure it's possible to get a grade lower than an A, but you have to try really hard. My daughter didn't turn in a single assignment on time in 7th grade, and what she did turn in was honestly pretty crappy for every subject except math. Lowest grade was an A-.

Also college. My daughter took a class where she thought she did the minimum work possible. She got an A. She asked a TA how and was told that her work was so far in excess of any other persons’ work that she got an A. Everyone else received an A-.

The thing that bugs me the most is that by not docking points for late work, the teachers are teaching my daughter that deadlines don't matter. At some point, it will be necessary for her to get her work done on time, but it's really hard to convince her of this when her entire life experience tells her the opposite.

As soon as she is old enough we plan on making sure she gets a job; weird to say this, but I hope she gets fired for showing up late.

Why exactly /do/ deadlines matter? My experience has shown that with white collar work things are a lot more flexible than in school, sure there are "deadlines" but in almost all cases they are negotiated in advanced and lateness is accepted with, often weak, justification. The only thing college is more accepting of is tardiness but even with that you can get a lot of leeway depending on what company you are working for.

This is of course is a bit different for retail or blue collar work. It's kind of ironic that as you get payed more, the more you can get a way with.

Indeed. Deadlines only mattered in my life when in university and before. I can't say that I have had to deal with a genuine deadline in nearly three years now.

My first exposure to this was during my first serious internship. On my first day, I was in a meeting of a dozen large banks and everyone was supposed to have completed a task so that we could move on. My bank had not completed the task, so I was expecting a lecture from the others in the group.

Maybe two companies had done it. The rest were split between halfway done and "oh, that was for today?"

In my life as a dev, work that runs over just gets shipped in the next sprint. That feature you have needs a tad more work? Move it from sprint 7 to 8.

That hasn’t been my experience with white collar work. Yes, something don’t have to be done now but you’re not the only person working on them, so when you’re late, someone else is too, and so on.

Something can be delayed with prior notice, but that’s a lesson in and of itself.

Only real deadlines so far were for getting demos ready for trade shows. Everything else has been wildly flexible. At least we get to take the time to deliver quality. :)

I had a CS class where I got almost double the next highest grade in the class (90 vs 47). To be fair my school had a very mediocre CS program and it was an off semester (I went there because it had a pretty good physics program, but switched majors a couple years in).

> I think that might be the biggest sin with today's school system.

You might not mean it but to me this implies that things were better in the past. You don’t have to go back very far at all to find completely alarming and abusive methods used in schooling. It might have a way to go but it’s also come quite a long way in quite a short time.

My grandfather tells my daughter about going to school and being beaten by the teacher for making mistakes.

The problem with mistakes is that there are at least two kinds of mistakes that happen in school: 1) Mistakes where a student genuinely tries but fails because they didn't quite find the right solution. 2) Mistakes where a student gets it wrong because they put 0 (or even negative) effort into learning or trying to solve the problem.

Mistakes of the first kind should be celebrated, mistakes of the second should be harshly scorned.

Unfortunately, as I remember most of my classmates in school (lower, upper, and especially university) the vast majority of mistakes were made in #2.

I don't know what the school system can do about this. How can you differentiate between the two with the information available to instructors?

You won’t get genuine effort with “harshly scorning” either. If a kid isn’t motivated to learn, punishments and fear aren’t going to solve the problem. They may well make it worse.

That's possibly fair. I honestly don't know much about motivating kids to learn, and I never saw successful examples growing up.

Do you know of any basic theories about it or places I could read more?

My problem is that I remember seeing lots of different attempts to motivate students while I was in school (every teacher had a different approach), and I never saw one that worked at all beyond "If you don't do this I will punish you." (bad grades, principles office, some formal punishment system)

Punishments just make kids (and adults) do the minimum to avoid punishment. They are counter-productive to developing real intrinsic motivation.

Motivation issues probably need to be worked out individually with each kid, which to be fair is not really possible for a teacher with 20 students in their class. But fear and punishments are at best just a band-aid for the problem. At worst, they can ruin a kid’s self-image and cause them to give up on school entirely.

I’m speaking from my own personal experience mainly, and what I saw happen to friends while growing up.

I look at things from a needs-based perspective and from the assumption that, barring conditioning to deny meeting needs or even their existence, living creatures innately seek to meet needs to survive and thrive.

Learning is a need to for both. The body needs to learn how to breathe, digest, poop, etc. Joy is a need for thriving. It also boosts learning.

There's an issue that arises here with common issues around "motivating kids to learn," which is this implies people need to be given some form of incentive to learn, when the truth is the brain is always learning. It may not be learning the content being taught, but it's at least definitely learning from the way the content's being taught. The issue here is that autonomy is a need and modern schooling seems to be focused on dictating to people what to learn. This is a systemic denial of autonomy. As a result, the learning environment is already suboptimal. And if someone already suffers from a chronic denial of autonomy (like, say, in a society that doesn't value empowering children to do what they want and/or in a family that also doesn't, or supports empowerment within a very limited set of constraints, all of which are common situations for most young people in the US), then the system is ensuring learning the curriculum will be severely hindered for those people.

People learn faster when they choose their options. Choosing from an arbitrarily constrained list of subjects isn't the same thing. And chronic need denial harms the learning process, so if you want people to learn what they need to survive and thrive, ask them what they want to learn next and help them learn about that thing and tie the exploration back to needs.

And if you don't know what the mathematically proven universal human needs are, welcome to the dystopia. We currently don't have such a list and I'm hoping category theorists or constructor theorists develop it soon. In the meantime, there are many different lists online promoting different needs. One that's seemingly been forgotten from many of them is the need for memory, so remember to figure out a process for uncovering hidden needs. I choose to follow suffering to see what the underlying needs are there and seeing if the suffering goes away after meeting those needs. If not, there may be a hidden need at play.

I think a lot of it is just about making it fun. Gamification. Story telling. And tying the learning to stuff they are already interested in.

It also helps if the teacher is genuinely passionate about the subject taught. And knows way more than is in the curriculum so he can go on weird tangents and answer curveball questions.

Oh and keeping difficulty just right. Not so easy that it is boring, but not so hard that it makes students despair.

Can you imagine if we lived in a world where we gave young people the room to follow their passions instead of being forced to grind the same repetitive material, stealing the joy of learning from them? Not every person needs to be good at everything for a society to flourish, or for that person to be successful, healthy, and productive.

In Math, you can tell students to show you how they got the answer to a problem.

I think the bigger problem is that '100%' is often the goal, yet it is far from optimal; get students out of the 'all or nothing' mindset, so they don't become cynical.

In my English schooling system (GCSE and A Levels), if a math question was worth ten points, the correct final answer would be worth exactly one point.

The other nine points were for the steps, and, indeed, were a hint that there were probably ten distinct steps (although usually you could combine several steps and still get full marks so long as it was clear).

Among other things, this also allowed for error-carried-forward: if you made a stupid arithmetic error on step 3, and all your subsequent steps had the wrong values, you would only lose one point, though your final answer was completely wrong.

This always amazed the Americans I speak to, for whom it seems there's just a random point or two for "showing your work."

This is the same as my experience growing up in Australia - right the way from primary school up to university-level subjects, mathematics working is marked and you get almost full points if you solve the problem correctly but just make some clerical error somewhere. Even if you can show progress towards a solution but can’t quite get the last bit, you’ll often get 7 or 8 out of 10.

At Caltech you'd get partial credit for getting partway to the correct solution. But, if you got a nonsense result (like negative energy), you'd get negative credit unless you included a note:

   I know the answer is absurd, but I don't know where I went wrong.

I think this is a good policy, and have often been annoyed that I can’t (rules of the university) mark my students down for such absurd answers.

Yup. That was institute policy, not the professor's discretion. They were pretty clear about thinking whether the answer was reasonable or not.

Makes sense, with the situation that if the student includes the note then they are not penalized.

It's pretty important to be able to recognize if you fat-fingered a calculator and got something ridiculous or not.

> This always amazed the Americans I speak to, for whom it seems there's just a random point or two for "showing your work."

Random point or two? As an American I think it was usually worth most of the points for the math I did...

But this is still aiming for 100%. Being challenged is dangerous to your grade.

Back in the 2000s, a variation on this was used in the US navy's technical schools. Correct answer? Full points, regardless of showing work. Incorrect answer with work shown? Points off for the error, but allowance for errors carried forward. Didn't show work? No points for you!

this reminds me of the error biased marking scheme

get an answer right = +1 point

get an answer wrong = -2 point via subtracting the number of wrong answers from the right answers.

so the plan that was advised is if you are not 100% sure of the answer then dont answer, and you only lose 1 point for not answering

This was also the 80s and 90s approach (at least in Catholic schools when I was a student)

I know you're busy, so I don't expect you to do this, but if you're interested I'd like to talk 1:1 with you.

I kinda agree with you on this one, but I don't agree with you on the thread re: diabetes. Some sentiments are harming people, right now, and not being allowed to call them out seems wrong to do. If this was also about the name of the person, I just picked the name that they had on their HN profile.

Either way. Apologies to you for creating more mod-work-load. I'll keep this in mind and I'd like not to get banned either.

I appreciate the kind reply! The thing is, there isn't really a tradeoff here, because even in the case when people are so completely wrong about something so important that harm could result from believing them, the best way to respond is to patiently provide good arguments and correct information.

If you slip into the flamewar style and/or the online callout-shaming style (which overlap, of course), you won't reduce harm. You'll only provoke and reinforce the people who disagree, and the resulting conflagration won't help undecided people decide. Worse, you run the risk of discrediting your own position, and if your position happens to be a correct one, that actually causes harm in its own right, because it somehow ends up discrediting the truth (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

So happily, I would say, the cause of not having flamewars, of sticking to the site guidelines, and of giving the truth the best possible advocacy, more or less coincide. That doesn't make it easy. It's far from easy, but that's because it's hard to handle the emotional torque it places on you when someone else is saying something that is (or that you feel is) totally wrong on a topic. Where by "you" I don't mean you personally, of course—I mean all of us.

In my experience, kids (and adults) are not receptive to learning until after they've failed. Sometimes it takes repeated failure :-/

My mom would tell me "do well in school or you'll grow up to be a ditch-digger!"

My first W2 job was grunt landscaping work. It was pretty motivating to get an education.

One issue I see in school systems is that a failure is just indicated as that - "wrong, try again" or "failed". The consequences of being wrong aren't immediately real. When they are (as at a vegetable market in chennai where I am) you learn quickly how to (for ex) calculate correctly so you don't lose money, how to use a balance to weigh things, how to talk to people well, etc.

Saying "if you get this wrong now, in the future when you do X you'll have trouble" is completely unmotivating.

Kids take pains to get their robux and other in-game points calculations correct for example because theyfeel real for them. Otherwise it is just a matter of following your teacher's rules.

What happens when children's brains develop too quickly?

Research shows that the more ACEs a child experiences, the more likely they are to suffer from issues like heart disease, diabetes, depression, learning challenges, and substance abuse later in life. This is due, at least in part, to the effect that trauma has on the central nervous system.

Can a child develop too fast?

There are no health consequences for rapid growth—growth disorders are super rare—though some kids might get annoying growing pains in their legs from accelerated growth in the bones.

At what age do you think a child's brain is developing fastest?

3 years. By 3 years of age a child's brain has around 1,000 trillion brain connections (synapses). The early years are a rapid period of brain development which can be fostered by positive relationships with parents and optimal community environments for families and children.

What are the factors that can deprive the child from brain development to happen?

Long-Term Impact Young children who are deprived of caring interaction do not develop as many positive brain connections. Hunger, neglect and exposure to family violence are all factors that can negatively impact a child's early development and, subsequently, their future.

What children lose when their brains develop to fast

Former Ohio State Buckeye Harry Miller shares his inspirational mental health journey

What happens when children's brains develop too quickly?

Can a child develop too fast?

At what age do you think a child's brain is developing fastest?

What are the factors that can deprive the child from brain development to happen?

Related Posts

Cinderella bout to lose the glass off her foot lyrics

Advertising

LATEST NEWS

How do you put music to a picture

If wisdom tooth hurts is it infected

How to pack gauze for wisdom teeth

How does amazon 6 month financing work

Does iphone 11 pro have sim card

Lilo and stitch the series disney plus

Entering the us from canada by air

How can i replace my social security card

How to delete your account on nintendo switch

Blue bell dutch chocolate ice cream ingredients

Advertising

Populer

Advertising

About

Legal

Help

Social