Comment Scientific American, Time-Life, Science-Year (Score 1) 434
There are a lot of comments here that say either that 'you can't', or 'its doomed to try', or 'SciFi is crap' or the like. This is wrong-headed for so many reasons, it just boggles the mind.
The genesis of Scientific Curiosity and Mathematical Reckoning are both influenced heavily by the sense of excitement that comes from BEGINNING to master the domain. As a kid, I ran into a couple boxes of old 1950s SciAm mags, which as a lark, I rescued from the predations of my neighbor's saturday rubbish incineration ritual. In no particular order, over the next year, I read them all ... and longed for more. By the time I was done, I had a huge opus of 'triggers' in my mind that would later come into play to keep my interest in Science and Math keen through high school, college, university and beyond.
The same story goes for Time-Life Science series. Same neighbor, same rescue. This brought literally years of fascinating reading of The Elements, of all sort of specialized (and colorfully illustrated) topics. The two (SciAm & TLS) became mutually supporting - the more I read, the easier it became to "get into" the next thing I was just starting to read. Another friend had a father who purchased the Encyclopedia Brittanica yearly subscription to Science Year. I couldn't keep my hands off them! What fascinating stories of the things that came to fruition that very year! The excitement was as palpable to me as I imagine it must be to lads who are so totally into Sports that they pester their parents to buy a half-dozen recaps every month.
Yet, this keen synergy between what had been read, and remained to be absorbed wasn't without an influence from educators - both in and oddly apart from Science and Math itself! Most of the Science teachers were pretty inept, but a couple let me 'have my way' with self-study. That was good, but only became really influential when they occasionally tried to have some discussion too with me. Only then could I see the workings of their own science interest, rational, reason and belief. Some of the English Literature teachers were prescient enough to see I was doing 'just OK' in their courses ... but also that I would respond quickly to special assignments having to do with anything relating to science. So, I was introduced to SciFi, and it became yet another passion which in its own silly way, supported the Science-and-Math interest.
To end I must now answer how these observations be put to use to inspire kids to embrace Science and Math. I think it must start with and active attempt by parents and educators to 'adaptively pattern' the young minds they influence. Deep interest in ANYTHING truely seems to be like kindling a smouldering wad of tinder into a flame. It is so easy to wink out when confronted by early failure, or insipid teaching, or dogmatic loftiness. Parents CAN influence their kids markedly by the simplest expedient of all: eliminating limitless distraction from the child's bedroom, but leaving in its wake a host of 'interesting things' to read. The interest will develop precisely because at an early age, curiosity will have Johnny opening those books almost out of boredom. And if the books contain brilliant but simplified expose's of topics of nearly limitless range (note I'm not excluding stunning literature, short stories, sports or anything else!), then the child will almost invariably begin to search out more of the same, day after day.
It is exactly in realization of this conclusion that I am also deeply opposed to providing kids with limitless amounts of 'mind junk'. Cell phones are virtually without redeeming value, TVs do almost nothing except 'entertain' - if that. Video games aren't bad (how about that!) because they do cultivate the ideas of ciphering mental mazes, artifices of logic and reasoning. Computers are great, but I think they should for many years be in a common area, not in the bedroom. Just the greatest musicians and artists have a surprisingly common thread of 'focus through impoverishment', so too is the subtle - and yes, artificial - selective impoverishment of the child a key to their striving to GET BEYOND THE BARS.
Or so sez me.
The genesis of Scientific Curiosity and Mathematical Reckoning are both influenced heavily by the sense of excitement that comes from BEGINNING to master the domain. As a kid, I ran into a couple boxes of old 1950s SciAm mags, which as a lark, I rescued from the predations of my neighbor's saturday rubbish incineration ritual. In no particular order, over the next year, I read them all
The same story goes for Time-Life Science series. Same neighbor, same rescue. This brought literally years of fascinating reading of The Elements, of all sort of specialized (and colorfully illustrated) topics. The two (SciAm & TLS) became mutually supporting - the more I read, the easier it became to "get into" the next thing I was just starting to read. Another friend had a father who purchased the Encyclopedia Brittanica yearly subscription to Science Year. I couldn't keep my hands off them! What fascinating stories of the things that came to fruition that very year! The excitement was as palpable to me as I imagine it must be to lads who are so totally into Sports that they pester their parents to buy a half-dozen recaps every month.
Yet, this keen synergy between what had been read, and remained to be absorbed wasn't without an influence from educators - both in and oddly apart from Science and Math itself! Most of the Science teachers were pretty inept, but a couple let me 'have my way' with self-study. That was good, but only became really influential when they occasionally tried to have some discussion too with me. Only then could I see the workings of their own science interest, rational, reason and belief. Some of the English Literature teachers were prescient enough to see I was doing 'just OK' in their courses
To end I must now answer how these observations be put to use to inspire kids to embrace Science and Math. I think it must start with and active attempt by parents and educators to 'adaptively pattern' the young minds they influence. Deep interest in ANYTHING truely seems to be like kindling a smouldering wad of tinder into a flame. It is so easy to wink out when confronted by early failure, or insipid teaching, or dogmatic loftiness. Parents CAN influence their kids markedly by the simplest expedient of all: eliminating limitless distraction from the child's bedroom, but leaving in its wake a host of 'interesting things' to read. The interest will develop precisely because at an early age, curiosity will have Johnny opening those books almost out of boredom. And if the books contain brilliant but simplified expose's of topics of nearly limitless range (note I'm not excluding stunning literature, short stories, sports or anything else!), then the child will almost invariably begin to search out more of the same, day after day.
It is exactly in realization of this conclusion that I am also deeply opposed to providing kids with limitless amounts of 'mind junk'. Cell phones are virtually without redeeming value, TVs do almost nothing except 'entertain' - if that. Video games aren't bad (how about that!) because they do cultivate the ideas of ciphering mental mazes, artifices of logic and reasoning. Computers are great, but I think they should for many years be in a common area, not in the bedroom. Just the greatest musicians and artists have a surprisingly common thread of 'focus through impoverishment', so too is the subtle - and yes, artificial - selective impoverishment of the child a key to their striving to GET BEYOND THE BARS.
Or so sez me.
