>You are implying that the creator of the project is pushing this onto their daughter merely for his own vanity - where do you get that from? I browsed a few pages on the site, and couldn't see anything at all that would suggest that. Quite the opposite in fact, there were several gentle suggestions of the daughter having a lovely time and being very interested.
From probability, science and reality. This is what it says: Women are interested in people, men are more interested in things. Also children aren't generally interested in things that are too technical. This information is both obviously anecdotal and additionally demonstrated to be generally true scientifically.
The anecdotal part is obvious. What child is interested in buffer overflows? Take a look at all the kids you've known and have known your whole life and count the ones that are interested. Then take a look at women, how many women do you know are interested in buffer overflows? Should be next to none. The dual category of women who are also children should be astronomically low, so low that likely most people can go their whole lives without encountering a little girl who was interested in buffer overflows.
The scientific part is less obvious, but it exists for the gender part as experiments taken out on the national scale. But, most likely you're not interested in this because there's an argument to be won, and evidence to change your view isn't your objective. Your objective is to scold me rather than question why I said what I said. Am I not wrong here?
Anecdotally, I see time and time again parents (including mine) pushing their kids to be interested in the things they were interested in. The gender divide is especially questionable here. A father was a football player, does he push the daughter to be a football player too? Does he try to get her interested? Do we strive for gender equality when there is a clear and obvious biological divide here in terms of innate biological interests and also innate biological physicality.
We admit the physicality part so you won't see a father stupid enough to try to teach his daughter sports, but modern society is trying to deny the gender mental dichotomy. Will a girl really be interested in buffer overflows? I'd teach my daughter UI and UX stuff if I had to go that route.
The second part of this is my post admitted and acknowledged that I'm addressing a probability. A likelihood. It could be that his daughter is an exception to the rule, but, again, I am addressing a generality and generalities are valid.
>As someone who's been involved with education for a good few years now, my experience is that kids are much more capable learners than seems to be generally believed.
The only quantitative science around this IQ. IQ for children are generally lower than adults. That's as much as can be definitively said, unless you wish to argue this point, be my guest. But my point wasn't around capability. I'm positive any child can learn buffer overflows. The question is whether they give a shit, and if you've been a child before or dealt with them, the overwhelming majority would NOT be interested at all.
>One reason for this seems to me to be how schools are structured, but maybe the fundamental thing at the heart of it is the limiting beliefs of people throwing around opinions like yours. I say hats off to this father for attempting to share his interests and his passions, with his daughter and the world.
Yes hats off. I'd like to know the outcome of his attempt as should you. Because if his attempt is utter failure or complete success that's a datapoint for both of us to learn. Or maybe just for me to learn, because the tone of your reply implies an agenda and a datapoint against your agenda is likely not favored.
From probability, science and reality. This is what it says: Women are interested in people, men are more interested in things. Also children aren't generally interested in things that are too technical. This information is both obviously anecdotal and additionally demonstrated to be generally true scientifically.
The anecdotal part is obvious. What child is interested in buffer overflows? Take a look at all the kids you've known and have known your whole life and count the ones that are interested. Then take a look at women, how many women do you know are interested in buffer overflows? Should be next to none. The dual category of women who are also children should be astronomically low, so low that likely most people can go their whole lives without encountering a little girl who was interested in buffer overflows.
The scientific part is less obvious, but it exists for the gender part as experiments taken out on the national scale. But, most likely you're not interested in this because there's an argument to be won, and evidence to change your view isn't your objective. Your objective is to scold me rather than question why I said what I said. Am I not wrong here?
Anecdotally, I see time and time again parents (including mine) pushing their kids to be interested in the things they were interested in. The gender divide is especially questionable here. A father was a football player, does he push the daughter to be a football player too? Does he try to get her interested? Do we strive for gender equality when there is a clear and obvious biological divide here in terms of innate biological interests and also innate biological physicality.
We admit the physicality part so you won't see a father stupid enough to try to teach his daughter sports, but modern society is trying to deny the gender mental dichotomy. Will a girl really be interested in buffer overflows? I'd teach my daughter UI and UX stuff if I had to go that route.
The second part of this is my post admitted and acknowledged that I'm addressing a probability. A likelihood. It could be that his daughter is an exception to the rule, but, again, I am addressing a generality and generalities are valid.
>As someone who's been involved with education for a good few years now, my experience is that kids are much more capable learners than seems to be generally believed.
The only quantitative science around this IQ. IQ for children are generally lower than adults. That's as much as can be definitively said, unless you wish to argue this point, be my guest. But my point wasn't around capability. I'm positive any child can learn buffer overflows. The question is whether they give a shit, and if you've been a child before or dealt with them, the overwhelming majority would NOT be interested at all.
>One reason for this seems to me to be how schools are structured, but maybe the fundamental thing at the heart of it is the limiting beliefs of people throwing around opinions like yours. I say hats off to this father for attempting to share his interests and his passions, with his daughter and the world.
Yes hats off. I'd like to know the outcome of his attempt as should you. Because if his attempt is utter failure or complete success that's a datapoint for both of us to learn. Or maybe just for me to learn, because the tone of your reply implies an agenda and a datapoint against your agenda is likely not favored.