Explaining geopolitics to a seven year-old

[Samurai Waki]

I don't know if the girls are even aware there's a world outside of Mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa... then again they're only four.

I don't think you could have explained it any better, it's a complicated issue and it's not easy to understand for many adults.

[Lemur]

... then again they're only four.

Yeah, this is a kind of recent development. Trust me, I was not getting grilled about our military commitments when he was in preschool. He started wanting to know a lot more about the world in kindergarten and it's had an exponential growth curve since he hit first grade.

[Vladimir]

Has he been peeking over your shoulder while you're posting here?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You need to calm down

Not when they are voting.

[gaelic cowboy]

I still remember my surprise when finding out that the "plum pudding" (or quasi solar system) atomic model (neutrons & protons in centre, sperical electrons wizing around) wasn't actually right -and I was 17 then...

Me too my head near exploded when I found that 0=1 when using linear algebra in college

[Rhyfelwyr]

The worst one was when he asked me in the car if Christmas was Jesus' birthday. Ooooh, that stung. My inner thought process:

Just say what I would tell any future kids: Christmas is a pagan festival kept by the Romanists to cast us back into the bondage of the law. *we need the surprise smilie!*

I don't have any kids, but my brother has asked me questions on political issues ever since he was around 8, usually inspired by his playing of PC games, films, or some basic history he's been taught at school. The most recent example I can think of is when he asked something about the Nazi's (thar be a Godwin!), and for some reason when I explain things I have to go right back and try to take away all our modern assumptions etc, so I went on forever about the issue of class struggle and the idea of nationalism, through to the shorter-term factors like the depression, WWI reparations (don't get upset Louis!), and eventually got onto explaining how national socialism was a response to these issues.

I think he just about understood it as well.

Some things which might appear simpler proved harder though. Trying to explain that the term 'Jew' applies to both a religion and an ethnic group took a long time to get anywhere with (never mind explaining what an ethnic group was).

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Carebear Hussars can beat any terrorists!

[Beskar]

I still remember my surprise when finding out that the "plum pudding" (or quasi solar system) atomic model (neutrons & protons in centre, sperical electrons wizing around) wasn't actually right -and I was 17 then...

Well, it is still right. Just having them characterized in terms of the S, P, D and F orbits wasn't a major step in understanding.

Then again, I was never taught the 'plum pudding' model either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model

I don't get why or how anyone was ever taught that one.

[al Roumi]

Yeah, the diagram on that wiki page is a strange one. I was more used to this one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The idea of electrons not as spherical particles but clouds (and not neccessarily discrete lumps), as in the the following diagram was weird.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helium_atom_QM.svg

Lets not talk about light either... there's a reason I studied engineering (not physics) and then even left that as a discipline!

[a completely inoffensive name]

The plum pudding model is wrong. The plum pudding model states that the elections are surrounded in a positively charged cloud no nucleus involved. That was proven false by the Geiger–Marsden experiment in 1909 where Ernest Rutherford and his team shot alpha particles at gold foil which gave results that could only be explained by an incredibly small positively charged nucleus center with negatively charged elections orbiting it with the majority of the space itself being completely empty. This new model is the Rutherford model which was better but not perfect. After that Niels Bohr improved upon the model a lot. The picture you posted alh_p is the Rutherford-Bohr model.

However that model as shown by the picture isn't 100% right either because elections do not orbit in circles like planets around the sun but have atomic orbitals/clouds. Since then there have been a lot of quantum mechanic progress on the model but that stuff is over my head, however one of the more straightforward quantum mechanic improvements is that the elections in their clouds cannot have its position and velocity determined simultaneously under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Tellos Athenaios]

However that model as shown by the picture isn't 100% right either because elections do not orbit in circles like planets around the sun but have atomic orbitals/clouds. [/URL]

Actually it gets a bit more complex than that (for people in final years of highschool). The Bohr model works on a quantum mechanical level, so you need to understand first that an electron does not “orbit” itself per se. Rather it is something a bit like light, which behaves both as wave and as particle. The Bohr model merely explains physical properties of the atom, for instance fluorescence.

However it does not work at all well for chemical properties of elements nor for structure of “molecules” or other compounds made up of multiple elements. Then it quickly gets pretty scary because those orbits are now described in terms of partial differential equations which for even simple elements like H2 are a bit more than most people can stomach. But it's that more complex model of an orbit which when applied to multiple electrons gives the impression/appearance of a cloud when graphed in 3d (rather than it actually being a cloud itself).

So to sum up, in highschool Bohr is still correct in physics, and in chemistry you learn about the more complex quantum “configurations” of various electrons which is a different way of saying the same thing as in the Bohr model with the proviso you know a bit (but probably don't fully understand any of it) about those partial differential equations that come to define the conceptually simpler orbits previously taught.

Also: planets do not move in circular orbits around the Sun, due among other things to the interaction with other planets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually it gets a bit more complex than that (for people in final years of highschool). The Bohr model works on a quantum mechanical level, so you need to understand first that an electron does not “orbit” itself per se. Rather it is something a bit like light, which behaves both as wave and as particle. The Bohr model merely explains physical properties of the atom, for instance fluorescence.

However it does not work at all well for chemical properties of elements nor for structure of “molecules” or other compounds made up of multiple elements. Then it quickly gets pretty scary because those orbits are now described in terms of partial differential equations which for even simple elements like H2 are a bit more than most people can stomach. But it's that more complex model of an orbit which when applied to multiple electrons gives the impression/appearance of a cloud when graphed in 3d (rather than it actually being a cloud itself).

So to sum up, in highschool Bohr is still correct in physics, and in chemistry you learn about the more complex quantum “configurations” of various electrons which is a different way of saying the same thing as in the Bohr model with the proviso you know a bit (but probably don't fully understand any of it) about those partial differential equations that come to define the conceptually simpler orbits previously taught.

Also: planets do not move in circular orbits around the Sun, due among other things to the interaction with other planets.

Ahh, I stand corrected (as a new freshman entering uni only a month ago).

EDIT: I should say I was only using the circular planetary orbit as an analogy since most pictures of the "Solar system" at a basic level of schooling show every orbit to be essentially circular even though they are indeed not exactly so and are actually either elliptical or a bunch of other possibilities.

Also when I was a Junior in high school I took the general Chemistry course and they took it up to the orbital/cloud diagrams, in my senior year I took the AP Physics course and they used the Bohr model. Perhaps if I took an advance Chemistry course instead of regular I would have gotten the more accurate version.

[Megas Methuselah]

EDIT: Example. Was watching the California Gubernatorial Debate the other day. I'm trying to watch it in the tv in my apartments common area, half the time the stoner roommate comes in loud as hell and starts making a big ruckus with some of the female roommates (flirting). Really, really loud talking and laughing. Then he starts making a joke of the whole thing while I am trying to watch (after every single statement no matter what subject he would say something to the tune of "They are both lying! They want to stop me from smoking pot even though it doesn't have any side effects whatsoever!"). Then one of my female roommates takes a look at the tv for about 12 seconds and then says "That ugly guy is going to lose." "Who? Jerry Brown?" "Yeah, he just looks ugly and his voice is terrible, he isn't going to win. I'm going to vote for the woman." Cue second female roommate "But she is so ugly too!". Complete facepalm on my part at this point.

You should be so lucky Lemur, the fact you had this conversation with your kid and the way it turned out makes your child more contemplative then some college aged people I have met. Idk what you did, but you are doing something right.

EDIT 2: Also, if you have a daughter and she doesn't watch Gossip Girl, Glee or Jersey Shore you are raising the kid better then 60% of the girls I have met at college.

Yeah. I lost my faith in my American neighbours long ago.

[Rahwana]

fighting insurgency is a bloody lesson for everyone, it was actually EASIER, FAR EASIER to just kill everyone (or almost everyone) at a province which we invade, and move on...

But when I underwent the compulsory conscript training, I knew much more about battlefield conducts and customs... and why our troops can't just kill everyone in certain rebellious provinces... that's because all those Human rights declarations... now, Americans must eat their own they've used to opress another countries. (Sarcastic mode : ON)

[Lemur]

Bath conversation last night — Maxwell doesn't like the fact that Usagi Yojimbo kills so many people. "He doesn't have mercy. When was mercy invented?" I explain that in certain societies, at certain times, human life has been devalued.

"Like the Nazis?" Max asks. Yes, I say, although they were far from alone. It's happened many times.

"So what were the worst countries?" he asks. I reel of an easy list: Nazi Germany, feudal Japan, the Aztecs, the Spartans, Soviet Russia ...

And this is how I wind up facing the bathtime question, "Who was worse, Hitler or the Spartans?"

Oh for crying out loud.

[HoreTore]

First off, I should clarify that I have little knowledge of teaching 7-8(?) year olds, I have only dealth with those 4-5 years older than that.

With that in mind, I'll give you my thoughts nonetheless, Lemur:

It seems like he is the one asking questions, and you are the one giving the answer. My suggestion is to try swapping it around. Not when it comes to specific facts, as he has no way of knowing those, but when it comes to the more moral questions.

Also, remember that an 8-year old is on the concrete operational stage. This means that he will have a hard time to understand abstracts, if he can at all. Thus, when explaining things, make sure you give concrete examples to underline your statements. The closer those examples are to his daily life, the better. He is, however, able to out himself in another persons perspective, and is capable of understanding relations between mutliple sizes(ie. if the spartans are worse than the japanese, and the nazis are worse than the spartans, then the nazis are also worse than the japanese). He may, however, have some problems with drawing conclusions which includes all the bits of information you give him, and this is something you shiuld be aware of. If you tell him that thing X has quality A, B and C, he may give his conclusion based on just B. To elaborate further on this one(and ignore the validity of the example, it's just an example):

When we pass our judgement on something, we usually make it on the basis of several negaties and positives. If we use the Nazi's as an example, we can judge them based on two opposing qualities(I'm keeping it simple here): first, that they killed a bunch of innocents, and secondly that they fought communism. When we pass our judgement on the nazi's, we weigh the negatives of killing the jews up against the positives of keeping communism in check. Our judgement will follow which of the two we give most weight. Someone in the concrete operational stage, however, is likely to just consider one of them when he concludes. For example, he will conclude that they're good just on the basis that they halted communism.

[Lemur]

It seems like he is the one asking questions, and you are the one giving the answer. My suggestion is to try swapping it around.

It's true, we have a weird sort of reverse-Socratic dialogue. Never really thought about it. He's my son, if he has questions I give answers. You're right, though, leading him with questions would be more artful. Here's the thing: come bathtime, I am tired. Usually a full day of work behind me, and I just want to get them clean and ready for bed. I'm not at my sharpest around then.

Also, remember that an 8-year old is on the concrete operational stage.

Fine, whatever you mean person, force me to look it up. So this Piaget dude knew what he was talking about?

[HoreTore]

It's true, we have a weird sort of reverse-Socratic dialogue. Never really thought about it. He's my son, if he has questions I give answers. You're right, though, leading him with questions would be more artful. Here's the thing: come bathtime, I am tired. Usually a full day of work behind me, and I just want to get them clean and ready for bed. I'm not at my sharpest around then.

What this really is the difference between(what I would call) a transfer of knowledge(you giving answers) and learning by discovery(you asking questions for him to answer). Like most of my colleagues, I strongly favour the latter.

Fine, whatever you mean person, force me to look it up. So this Piaget dude knew what he was talking about?

He did indeed! Along with Dewey and Vygotsky, he is the basis for basically any teacher's education.

[Centurion1]

You might be waiting 11 years, but then you will be able to have those conversations for the rest of your life. To be honest Lemur, if he gets to that point by 16-18 he is already ahead of the game. Don't forget that many youth are so ignorant about this stuff even until their twenties or more. Trust me, the majority of people I have met at my university don't really think beyond one or two statements they agree with when it comes to many subjects.

EDIT: Example. Was watching the California Gubernatorial Debate the other day. I'm trying to watch it in the tv in my apartments common area, half the time the stoner roommate comes in loud as hell and starts making a big ruckus with some of the female roommates (flirting). Really, really loud talking and laughing. Then he starts making a joke of the whole thing while I am trying to watch (after every single statement no matter what subject he would say something to the tune of "They are both lying! They want to stop me from smoking pot even though it doesn't have any side effects whatsoever!"). Then one of my female roommates takes a look at the tv for about 12 seconds and then says "That ugly guy is going to lose." "Who? Jerry Brown?" "Yeah, he just looks ugly and his voice is terrible, he isn't going to win. I'm going to vote for the woman." Cue second female roommate "But she is so ugly too!". Complete facepalm on my part at this point.

You should be so lucky Lemur, the fact you had this conversation with your kid and the way it turned out makes your child more contemplative then some college aged people I have met. Idk what you did, but you are doing something right.

EDIT 2: Also, if you have a daughter and she doesn't watch Gossip Girl, Glee or Jersey Shore you are raising the kid better then 60% of the girls I have met at college.

Chill out bro.

And I watch Jersey Shore it makes me feel like a superior human being. Though I am a little ashamed for america now that they are in a foreign country.

[HoreTore]

A few points on language to consider(you're lucky I have to get up at 0600 tomorrow, or I could bore you with this subject all night long....):

First of all, a child has a more limited vocabulary than you do. This means that your son probably has a deeper understanding than what he is capable of expressing. Now, I'm not a language teacher, so my knowledge here isn't excellent, but I believe the progression is that we first learn the general terms, then we flesh out the nuances and details later(ie. constructivism*). This means that his understanding of a subject can be more nuanced than what his language is currently capable of expressing. Vygotsky is the guy who talks about language in learning.

Rommetveit(or rommedahl or something) has a theory called dialogism. He says that the words I use when talking to you, is first interpreted by you, through something he calls a 'medium'. In your medium, you interpret my words to make meaning of them, and the medium is created from your past experience. This means that it is likely to be different from my medium, which in turn leads to you interpreting my words in a different way to what I intended when I spoke.

Your son is likely to have a dramatically different medium than you do. It is thus important that you try to move his medium closer to your medium. A way to do this is to clarify the terms used. For example, if you want him t clean the window, he needs to understand what you mean by two terms; "clean" and "window". Without a common understanding here, you could tell him to clean the windows and he will go sit on a chair, thinking this is what you told him(caricatured example, I know).

So, when talking to your son, try to identify terms as you go along. Talk about them. Not just the terms you use, but the terms he uses as well. You too interpret what he says through a medium, and you will also need to clarify the terms your son uses in order to understand him. If he says 'mercy', ask him what mercy means, etc.

The last thing(for now, at least), is a handy technique called mirroring. When your son gives a statement in his words, rephrase the statement and say it back to him using your own words. This is an easy way of ensuring that you understand him, and also to pick up nuances you might have missed, as he will correct you if what you say is not what he meant.




*constructivism basically means that each new bit of knowledge builds on our previously accumulated knowledge, and that in order to understand something new, we must already know the things that knowledge builds on. For example, to learn multiplicationm we must first know addition.

[Vladimir]

I doubt he knows how funny that question was. I wondered why he picked those two; the oldest and newest?

I agree. Make help teach him how to think (reason?). He's already got a great foundation.

[HoreTore]

Edit: or was it Jerome Bruner who had Dialogism? Hmmm.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

Chill out bro.

And I watch Jersey Shore it makes me feel like a superior human being. Though I am a little ashamed for america now that they are in a foreign country.

Nah man, when you get between me and my gubernatorial debates you get angry ACIN. They may not care about politics, but I do, and I am not going to let them prevent me from learning.

If you have to watch to watch Jersey Shore to feel like a superior human being, you need to hit the gym more often or something. Talk to some girls.

Every girl I have talked to who watches trash tv like Jersey Shore, real housewives etc...they all admit that they watch it to feel better about themselves. What have parents been doing these past 25 years? I see studies of students feeling more self confident but less prepared then ever before and then I look around and everyone seems to need some validation that they are not complete failures at life. I just don't understand people sometimes.

[Centurion1]

Nah man, when you get between me and my gubernatorial debates you get angry ACIN. They may not care about politics, but I do, and I am not going to let them prevent me from learning.

If you have to watch to watch Jersey Shore to feel like a superior human being, you need to hit the gym more often or something. Talk to some girls.

Every girl I have talked to who watches trash tv like Jersey Shore, real housewives etc...they all admit that they watch it to feel better about themselves. What have parents been doing these past 25 years? I see studies of students feeling more self confident but less prepared then ever before and then I look around and everyone seems to need some validation that they are not complete failures at life. I just don't understand people sometimes.

I get to watch a show and go hey, I am a million times smarter than these people. Plus Schadenfreude my friend schadenfreude.

Human nature dictates that we as humans love to laugh at others misfortune.

As for the gym....... I am pretty sure i'm in better shape than you since yah know..... it dictates my ability to attend University and I do talk to girls

[Lemur]

If the measure is "am I better than the people on Jersey Shore" then I guess 99.999% of fathers are successes. I'm trying to do a little better than that, though.

I need to think about this whole Socratic dialogue thing. You're right, of course, that eliciting answers out of him is more artful and a better exercise for his mind, but he's so freakin' young. I feel as though he needs to build up a database before I start wiring in queries. Dunno.

[Centurion1]

If the measure is "am I better than the people on Jersey Shore" then I guess 99.999% of fathers are successes. I'm trying to do a little better than that, though.

I need to think about this whole Socratic dialogue thing. You're right, of course, that eliciting answers out of him is more artful and a better exercise for his mind, but he's so freakin' young. I feel as though he needs to build up a database before I start wiring in queries. Dunno.

The one thing you do not want to do is put answers into his head. Let him come to his own beliefs rather than forcing him to inherit yours.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I get to watch a show and go hey, I am a million times smarter than these people. Plus Schadenfreude my friend schadenfreude.

Human nature dictates that we as humans love to laugh at others misfortune.

I guess. But for me, schadenfreude quickly turns into pity or contempt when those I am observing go from unfortunately incompetent to downright retarded.

As for the gym....... I am pretty sure i'm in better shape than you since yah know..... it dictates my ability to attend University and I do talk to girls

Yet somehow you still need to stroke your ego by laughing at guidos? Idk man, it's fine if that is what you love to do, but I guess I just roll differently then most people my age judging by the Nielsen ratings.

Also, no doubt you are in better shape than me, just saying I would rather spend another hour at the gym to feel good about myself then watching those back to back episodes of "**** ups in New Jersey"

[Centurion1]

I guess. But for me, schadenfreude quickly turns into pity or contempt when those I am observing go from unfortunately incompetent to downright retarded.



Yet somehow you still need to stroke your ego by laughing at guidos? Idk man, it's fine if that is what you love to do, but I guess I just roll differently then most people my age judging by the Nielsen ratings.

Also, no doubt you are in better shape than me, just saying I would rather spend another hour at the gym to feel good about myself then watching those back to back episodes of "**** ups in New Jersey"

Obviously my statements wee in jest to an extent. Watching Jersey Shore for me usually means going with some friends to the lounge on thursday nights and studying until something hilariously stupid happens in which I laugh and go back to work. It really hasn't that much to do with ego, the "it makes me feel better about myself" line is just an easy quip. I really watch because I actually find it rather humourous. Perhaps i'm a neanderthal for finding humor in a show like that but eh I don't care.

I think two hours at the gym is enough for me.......

Edit: And yeah at first it's almost pure Schadenfreude and then it sort of turns to cringing embarrassment for these people (I'm one of those people who can't bear to watch someone embarrass themselves even if its just acting, (like Michael in the office). Then it turns to a sick fascination like how are people this stupid and i desperately begin to search for signs that no these individuals aren't actually retarded. But sadly...... they are.

[Adrian II]

Yeah, good job Lemur.

I have two of them, aged 13 and 16. I've been travelling through a minefield of such questions since the oldest got, oh, 13 or 14 years old. Always answer them to the best of your knowledge and to the full extent of your knowledge. If you're patient, they will always come back and ask about the things they didn't understand the first time round. Sometimes it'll take a year, but they will.

Also HoreTore's suggestion is excellent. I often initiate a good talk by asking them questions myself, over dinner for instance. Not to test their knowledge so much as to teach them to make up their own mind about things. I play the devil's advocate. You wouldn't believe what a fine Communist of proto-Fascist I make when I want to. They really like these 'debates' and the convivial atmosphere of dinner + the input of any table guests we have makes them even more fun.

AII

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obviously my statements wee in jest to an extent. Watching Jersey Shore for me usually means going with some friends to the lounge on thursday nights and studying until something hilariously stupid happens in which I laugh and go back to work. It really hasn't that much to do with ego, the "it makes me feel better about myself" line is just an easy quip. I really watch because I actually find it rather humourous. Perhaps i'm a neanderthal for finding humor in a show like that but eh I don't care.

Ahh I see.

Edit: And yeah at first it's almost pure Schadenfreude and then it sort of turns to cringing embarrassment for these people (I'm one of those people who can't bear to watch someone embarrass themselves even if its just acting, (like Michael in the office). Then it turns to a sick fascination like how are people this stupid and i desperately begin to search for signs that no these individuals aren't actually retarded. But sadly...... they are.

From what I have read, Jersey Shore is actually semi scripted. They tell the people what they are going to do for the night (go to a party or what have you), but then they just let them loose and film them interact with people.