this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
146 points (98.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48190 readers
1643 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

that's not how kids work. nor do most people.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Okay. I don't agree with you, but that's fine. We can disagree.

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I know you don't agree, because you have no real world experience.

The funny thing about the real world, is it tends to laugh in the face of our expectations about how it 'should work'.

Try teaching sometime and see how well you do with your 'just repeat at the children and they will learn' philosophy...

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, there's a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as "rational actors" has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.

I'm confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.

Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That's the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.

From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.

In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it's not naturally emotive?

Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.

[–] kinship 2 points 23 hours ago

I am with you. The guy above seems to treat children as the r word.
I can say for myself that having to relearn a ton of stuff as an adult is traumatizing and I agree with you that we should teach reality no matter the age (we can tackle it from various angles but saying that teaching bollocks is ok, that is a different story).

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Targeting the cognitive level of the child is not the same as not teaching logic. Your hierarchy example works fine for some levels, not for others was the point. It's a lot easier to teach a rote methodology than a hierarchy of trust.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Except, research shows that even at preschool level kids are able to distinguish expertise through various social cues. At this age it's more about authority than a hierarchy of trust.

But by the age I'm talking of, between 6 and 8, we have a wealth of research that shows that children are capable of understanding hierarchies of trust:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232520123_Children%27s_Reasoning_About_Three_Authority_Attributes_Adult_Status_Knowledge_and_Social_Position

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25425347/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096518305666

If your point is instead about the minority of students that are struggling to keep up, then that becomes more a discussion on the structure of education as a whole. Rather than this particular subject. Where funding and logistical problems meet conflicting needs of different kids.

But, the idea that we'd dumb down a curriculum for the minority is... troubling. But then so is the idea of that minority continually falling behind.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Huh. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that expressed more in the 8-12 "Pre-Teen" range.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Appreciate the humility.

Takes a well rounded and healthy mind to change your mind in the face of new information. It's increasingly rare to find this online and it takes courage especially in a public forum.

It's moments like this that renew my faith in human beings. Thank you for that gift tonight mate :).

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

the idea that we’d dumb down a curriculum for the minority is… troubling.

"No Child Left Behind" peering out from the shadows, gutting programs for more advanced students.

It's easier to lower the bar than make people jump higher.