
Can the Right Kinds of Play Teach Self-Control? - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27tools-t.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all
======
decode
_Dramatic play, he said, was the training ground where children learned to
regulate themselves, to conquer their own unruly minds._

This makes intuitive sense. Dramatic acting is almost by definition doing what
you think you should do, instead of what you want to do. Except for method
acting, which instead tries to make it so what you want to do is what you
should be doing.

I'd be interested to know if actors have better or worse self-control than
non-actors, and if method actors have better or worse self-control than other
types of actors.

------
zasz
FTA: Especially these days, they contend, when children spend more time in
front of screens and less time in unsupervised play, kids need careful adult
guidance and instruction before they are able to play in a productive way.

Kids need adults to show them how to play? Holy crap, what are we coming to?

~~~
tungstenfurnace
Indeed. Professionals want constant reassurance that it's OK for them to be
paid to be constantly interfering with children's play.

"How to begin to educate a child. First rule, leave him alone. Second rule,
leave him alone. Third rule, leave him alone. That is the whole beginning."

(D.H.Lawrence)

~~~
jerf
The ability of professional educators to turn what are valid and powerful
observations about childhood development, such as this stuff about executive
function, into stale, formulaic, and worst of all _ineffective_ teaching
techniques never ceases to astound me.

It probably boils down to the problem that when trying to teach "children" as
an amorphous mass, "formulaic" and "effective" are simply never going to go
together. No matter how smart the formulator or how hard the formula-applier
tries.

------
conoryoung
_In some studies, self-regulation skills have been shown to predict academic
achievement more reliably than I.Q. tests._

Observing an individual's ability to self-regulate works as a good predictor
of character in all kinds of situations, interviews being one of the more
useful applications. Although justifying your subject judgments to your
colleagues could be tricky -> "He answered the concurrency questions better
than average but kept slouching down into his chair - I don't think he's going
to be able to meet deadlines".

~~~
goodside
Also consider reminding such colleagues that there is a definite, well
confirmed negative correlation between conscientiousness and intelligence:
[http://www.ist-
world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=74c83...](http://www.ist-
world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=74c831c7db5d4fd1835f7ad6a37411f8)

~~~
decode
In the abstract of that paper, it says "the significant negative correlation
could be observed only in groups with above average mental abilities and not
in a random sample from a general population." Are there other papers that say
there's a general negative correlation?

