Parenting Science, founded by an evolutionary anthropologist, explains child development using research from psychology, anthropology and neuroscience.
HN commenters recommend it as a parenting resource for critical thinkers who want evidence-based explanations of child development.
Average IQ is [1]98 and decreasing. Don't think it would be statistically possible for everyone to have 110 as IQ in workplaces.
[2] For your other claims about low IQ. It is "correlated" with lower lifespan (bit different than what you claimed but causes are similar) since you didn't cite.
You can find studies explaining high IQ with differences in environment or income and others point to genes. Some studies claim the choice of [3]toys your kids play with correlates to their IQ and success in life while others ask you to find a good genetic match.
Depending on which camps you are in, IQ could be highly related to the poor condition of the society.
* -15 points for not getting a healthy diet and regular health check ups in your childhood.
* -15 points for lack of proper education, social and family structure in your childhood.
* -17 points for mental health problems, unemployment, poverty and limited freedom after you become an adult.
Those issues overlap with each other regardless of IQ. Although, you can argue Intelligent parents can change these outcomes and if you believe IQ is heritable, then it makes perfect sense. You can use that to explain your bias.
Historically, evidence has been carefully crafted to promote products, services, aristocracy and many other things. I believe a lot happens now too with a different vector (China manipulating their averages) so I think IQ is not a good metric for looking down on people and explaining other circumstantial…
Hi, Please ask if any part of my post is ambiguous (I'm not a native english speaker).
- Not leaving the baby alone especially when she cries, is simply one of the most important things.
The first year is the time of developing the confidence.
I recommend this:
https://www.parentingscience.com/strange-situation.html
- Later, at age of 1..2 years: limits, rules will be more important.
Without limits the child would not feel safe, and often tends to put control in her own hands,
which is not her responsibility at that age. Also see: "fear of losing control".
IMHO its especially hard if you've done right all the 1st year. :)
- Playing with her is a lot more important than giving toys.
- Tantrum is not a problem, even if it lasts for 30-40 minutes.
It is an emotional expression, saying something like "Help, I lost the attachment to you!"
A good limit for example: She must not hurt anybody, but expressing emotions is allowed.
- Screen, phone, tablet, Youtube, etc. is forbidden until 5 years, later time-limited (if inevitable).
I know that a lot of people are opposed.
Yes, being a parent is challenging.
The most damaging, repugnant and horrific lesson that school teaches you is to accept school as essential and vital for the education of a populace. You appear to have absorbed this lesson very well.
If you believe that the political biases, rote memorization, rigorous examination, strict discipline, regimentation and social control that comes with public schooling is superior to the intellectual freedom of homeschooling and alternative education, you are deluded.
In fact, a structured homeschooling curriculum outweighs public schooling: http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html
People will be biased, but for open-minded families, it's an excellent bet.
Then you underestimate just how apt children are at learning and absorbing information if given their own pace and room to heighten their interests. It's better to be well versed in a few fields and know minutiae about others, rather than merely know minutiae about many fields.
Please read the works of John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and Ivan Illich for further information.
England has some suicide and deliberate self harm research done by "University of Oxford". (Uh, that's not "Oxford University" or any of the colleges.) You could noodle through their website?
(http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/)
You might remember the reports a few years ago about cortisol levels in children at nurseries, compared to children at home? People said that cortisol was a stress hormone, and thus it's bad to be in the brains of children, and thus putting children in nursery is bad because it causes cortisol to be released. But other interpretations are that children need to learn to regulate their emotions, and that lack of cortisol means over-protection and lack of a chance to learn how to regulate emotion.
Sorry about the lousy links, it's the best I can do at the moment.
(http://www.parentingscience.com/daycare-centers.html)
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18633-mom-and-dad-stop-stifling-me--its-damaging-my-brain.html)
https://www.parentingscience.com/potty-training-age.html
>Infant potty training: 0-12 months
>It sounds bizarre to many Westerners. But for parents in places like India, China, and East Africa (deVries and deVries 1977; Boucke 2002), the traditional potty training age is early infancy. In these societies, parents learn to recognize their babies’ body signals and to use these signals to anticipate when their babies eliminate.
>When the infant is ready to go, the parent holds him over a sink, bowl, toilet, or the open ground. As the infant voids, the parent makes a characteristic sound or gesture. The baby learns to associate this parental sign with voiding, and, eventually, the parental sign becomes an invitation to void. When the baby feels the urge to go, he learns to hold back for a brief time until his parent gives him the “all clear."
https://www.parentingscience.com/
"Founded by an evolutionary anthropologist, this parenting resource is for critical thinkers -- people who want to understand child development from the perspectives of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and cognitive neuroscience.
I’ve got opinions. But who cares? You might be a scientist, physician, or teacher. Maybe you're an educated, skeptical layperson who loves science. Whatever the case, you don't need a sermon. You need evidence. You can draw your own conclusions.
So here it is: No folk theories. No preachy advice. No authoritarian pronouncements or pseudoscientific political dogma. Instead, you’ll find my analysis of the research, fully-referenced so you know where to go if you want to dig deeper yourself."