←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
iamerroragent ◴[] No.35511931[source]
They say scores in spatial reasoning went up while analogies, vocabulary, and numerical reasoning declined.

Hmmm I wonder if an increase use of videogames paired with a decrease in the amount of time parents can spend communicating with their children might be related.

Note that over the last 30 years it's vastly transitioned from one parent staying home raising children to both parents working.

replies(5): >>35512882 #>>35515514 #>>35517815 #>>35518043 #>>35520123 #
elhudy ◴[] No.35518043[source]
Humans are incredibly adaptive. Is there much reason to have an expansive vocabulary nowadays? We are taught to speak and write as concisely and understandably as possible. We can look up the definition of any word at our fingertips. "[I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books." - Einstein.

Maybe these tests are declining because they are measuring skills that are decreasingly relevant? I'm not certain I believe this myself but it's an interesting thought.

replies(4): >>35518120 #>>35518204 #>>35518433 #>>35521424 #
burnished ◴[] No.35518120[source]
Your vocabulary is tied to your expressive power and your ability to form coherent and compelling arguments. I'd argue that without an expansive vocabulary you would struggle to write with precision let alone brevity.

Not that its wrong to question, I just think you'd need to do more work supporting the idea that language skills are less important today for some reason.

replies(2): >>35518377 #>>35527377 #
dist1ll ◴[] No.35518377[source]
> Your vocabulary is tied to your expressive power and your ability to form coherent and compelling arguments

There is even more to it. Language can influence (prev.: limits) your thinking and ability to categorize. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

(Removed misleading reference)

replies(1): >>35519031 #
1. Apocryphon ◴[] No.35519031[source]
Isn't this Sapir-Whorf, which has been disproven? At least the last time I read of it in relation to 1984.
replies(2): >>35519180 #>>35519310 #
2. ◴[] No.35519180[source]
3. dist1ll ◴[] No.35519310[source]
Yup, linguistic determinism is nonsense, thanks for pointing that out. I edited my comment.