Jerryhao 和娃娃妈妈在 MSN上的对话。

linkspeed

As someone with a physiology background, this is where the theory falls
down for me. I simply do not believer research supports that there is no
difference (either in timing or in substance) in the development of
auditory and visual pathways.

linkspeed

I was taught to read using (I think) this method from the book "Why
Johnny Can't Read", in any case around 3 or so, my parents used large
flash cards of whole words of familiar objects, then words from Hop On
Pop, then cards of pages of Hop on Pop and then the book.  I was
fluently reading at 3.5 or so and am an avid reader till today (31 years
old) and did well academically, (so I don't think starting early hurt
me)

看来FLASHCARD不是DOMAN的独门密技

linkspeed

Glenn Doman is a phony. I'll be glad to provide details upon request, but
he's had a long career promoting utter falsehoods about cognitive
development, including gross errors concerning brain anatomy and
dysfunctions. He founds his theories upon his misconceptions about function
and anatomy, claims extraordinary and irreproducible results, and then
refuses to allow independent review of his studies. It's not just his
"intelligence building" claims, but also his snake-oil aimed at parents of
children with cognitive dysfunctions.

That does not mean that all of his ideas are false. He may be a great art
critic, for all I know. But you should be deeply suspicious of any factual
claim that he makes concerning child development.

>The basis of the whole idea is that babies *enjoy* it rather than it
>being pushed at them and you only continue if and as long as baby is
>enjoying it. In the never-ending search for new games to amuse my
>child I have tried a few cards on my daughter and she seems *really*
>keen. So I was just wondering if any of you have any personal
>experiences with this.

I don't see the harm, so long as you are not enriching Doman or annoying
the baby. The concern is that parents will go overboard.

注意最后一段

linkspeed

The material *does* consist of the opinions of skeptics (though backed with
facts). It is revealing that virtually every child development or
psychology expert who has investigated his claims has become such a
skeptic.

Doman is first and foremost a pseudoscientist in the field of child
development. He is without bona fide credentials or publication in
the field, he founded his theories upon grossly mistaken ideas about
neuroanatomy, and he refuses to allow skeptical review or evaluation of his
"results" by child development researchers. You can start with the notes at
the end of Burton White's classic book _First Three Years of Life_. White
excoriates Doman for sloppy methodology and refusal to allow outside
verification of his research.

For more detail, see the review by Prof. Terence Hines (author of
_Pseudoscience and the Paranormal_) of the retitled version of Doman's book
_What to do About Your Brain-Injured Child_  [Skeptical_Inquirer 19:5, Sept
95]. Doman repackaged an unedited older version with a new title that
enumerates virtually every common childhood behavior disorder,
psychopathology, and neuropathology--hardly an honest approach. It's now
titled _What To Do About Your Brain-Injured Child Or Your Brain-damaged,
Mentally Retarded, Mentally Deficient, Cerebral-palsied, Spastic, Flaccid,
Rigid, Epileptic,  Autistic, Athetoid, Hyperactive, Down's [sic] Child_
(Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, NY, 1994]. The title alone
should reveal that it's selling snake-oil.

It should be noted that Glenn Doman is not affiliated with the "National
Academy for Child Development" which was founded by his nephew, Robert J.
Doman Jr., [http://www.nacd.org]. I don't know if NACD is an honest
organization or not. Even Glenn Doman's original Institutes for the
Achievement of Human Potential are now run by his son.

>In particular I have always wondered how come he never provides evidence
>of any superior achievements of any of his "wonderkids" beyond their
>early childhoods.

Long-term followup is difficult and unavailable in many areas. However,
Doman's errors go far beyond this, to include a theoretical basis which is
simply false and results reporting which cannot be confirmed or replicated.

>And no, don't worry, I don't plan on enriching him since I am making
>all my own cards and stuff, plus I am not by nature inclined to go
>"overboard" about anything. Just having fun with my daughter.

Now that I've said all of these bad things about Doman, he's supposed to be
a personally nice, well-intentioned guy (if he's still alive). I really
*don't* see the harm in any reasonable playing around with flash cards. I
doubt it will have any great effect, but as long as you are interacting
with the baby and heeding her signs of disinterest, I think it's for the
good.

Write us back in 20 years and tell us if this now young man loves to
read.  A lot of pushed babies end up hating school and never cracking
a book that isn't assigned.

注意：pushed babies

linkspeed

I posted a reference from memory, a dangerous practice.  Here's the
correct citation:

  Evelyn B. Thoman and Sue Browder, _Born Dancing: How Intuitive Parents
  Understand Their Baby's Unspoken Language and Natural Rhythms_, Harper
  & Row, 1987.

I'd recommend this book to any parent of a baby.  Some quotes re Doman
from Chapter 1, "The Real Truth about Superbabies":

  "And that brings us to my main concern about Doman's approach (and
  other plans like his): If you follow all his "shoulds" and put too
  much pressure on your baby to perform, you may disrupt the dance
  between you.  Your baby may come to see himself not as a person loved
  and respected for himself, but as worthy of your love only if he
  performs adequately.  Developmental psychologist Dr. Edward Zigler at
  Yale, who probably knows as much about child development as any
  scientist in America, says of Doman's program, "This is not a healthy
  parent-child relationship.  It's giving children the message, 'I love
  you only because you're smart.'"
  
  "Worse, what happens to tiny children who *can't* master the lessons?
  Tufts University psychologist Dr. David Elkind says in _The Hurried
  Child_, "Children who are confronted with demands to do math or read
  before they have the requisite mental abilities may experience a
  series of demoralizing failures and begin to conceive of themselves as
  worthless." ...
  
  "Studies have confirmed that a high IQ score in infancy has little or
  no connection with high IQ in later life....
  
  "In fact, much evidence I'll cite throughout this book shows it's not
  formal lessons but socially interacting with *you* that makes your
  baby bright....
  
  "Not only has no connection been shown between a baby's earlier and
  later IQ, but "superior" performance early can even mean poor
  performance later....
  
  "All this emphasis on enrolling your baby in school or trying to
  "teach" him to enjoy learning is a lot like trying to teach a duckling
  to like water.  "Children learn for the same reason that birds fly,"
  Dr. Zigler says....
  
  "[B]eing concerned only about your baby's IQ and how he performs on
  textbook tasks focuses *your* attention exclusively on what your baby
  knows or does rather than on how he feels and who he is....
  
  "eople who insist you should turn your baby into a *better* baby
  simply misunderstand.  Your baby is already super.  He's already the
  best baby he can be.  Giving your baby lessons not only can rob him of
  his babyhood and distract him from profounder pursuits but can take
  away a lot of the joy you as a parent deserve.  There are many realy
  challenges that come with raising a baby.  Why add pseudo challenges
  like reading lessons to the list?"
  
Richard


这个算是最具体的反对意见了。 我看了这些，反对意见有下面3点：
1。学习压力过重会造成以后的厌学
2。早学无用，早晚都会
3。无科学证据证明DOMAN的方法

其中1被认为是DOMAN的害处
2被认为是不用DOMAN的理由
3是用来否定DOMAN的。

jerryhao

是这样，世界上有很多神奇的人，但不会有那么多神奇的方法，有的时候爱心也是一种负担。

天问

引用:<<!--quote1-->"teach" him to enjoy learning is a lot like trying to teach a duckling
to like water. "

这里有人专门讨论过如何教孩子爬的问题。

pharmacist

>Your baby is already super. He's already the best baby he can be.

还有就是每个孩子的学习能力都是惊人的,我觉得即使是学龄儿童吧,大部分时间都并不需要用在纯粹的知识学习上.我跟很多朋友聊天,谈起在学校时的往事,很多人的时间是花在如何与父母斗智都勇去干些课外的事去了.所以听周弘的报告,每次只要"感觉找到了"就可以引起学习上的一个飞跃.
去年我回国跟我侄子玩,他十岁,已跳了一级读五年纪了,成绩也很好.我问他学习辛不辛苦.他告诉我喜欢的就不辛苦,讨厌的就辛苦.问他每天学多久,他要我别告诉他父母,其实他在房里的时间大概也就不到一半的时间用来学习.
那么我们为什么不好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑",而非要去开发"其余的97%的大脑呢"?我们对大脑的认识是那么的不足,谁能保证开发过程中不出问题呢?

linkspeed

>那么我们为什么不好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑",而非要去开发"其余的97%的大脑呢"?
>我们对大脑的认识是那么的不足,谁能保证开发过程中不出问题呢?

有很多人就是不能好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑"，这个时候怎么办？
你怎么保证你的孩子会“好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑"”？

兄弟你和你的侄子运气好，没怎么训练就聪明，
但是不能老是站着说话不腰疼，饱汉子不知饿汉子饥

打个比方：我从来不生病吃药，你们为什么要保健强身？

pharmacist

linkspeed+-->引用:linkspeed >那么我们为什么不好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑",而非要去开发"其余的97%的大脑呢"?
>我们对大脑的认识是那么的不足,谁能保证开发过程中不出问题呢?

有很多人就是不能好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑"，这个时候怎么办？
你怎么保证你的孩子会“好好利用现在已够用的"3%的大脑"”？

兄弟你和你的侄子运气好，没怎么训练就聪明，
但是不能老是站着说话不腰疼，饱汉子不知饿汉子饥

打个比方：我从来不生病吃药，你们为什么要保健强身？