
Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild - saadmalik01
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/nature/Unschooling-The-Case-for-Setting-Your-Kids-Into-the-Wild.html
======
fchollet
The fundamental problem with the elementary school system in the west is that
kids are given no room for self-direction whatsoever; school for them is de
facto a part-time prison or "labor" camp. As a result they are trained by
association to dread to that which the system purports to champion: learning,
culture, reading, knowledge, even any demonstration of intelligence.

It takes a combination of luck, will and positive external influences (good
parents, a mentor) to overcome that. But most kids don't.

Which is why it seems to me that "setting kids free", in the sense of giving
them significant latitude for self-direction in their activities and
education, is a great principle. The key problem of education is motivation.
Most kids are smart and fast learners, the only difficulty in getting them to
learn is to get them interested (even better: passionate). The only way that
can happen is by giving them choice, freedom. The opportunity to exercise free
will. Let's _guide_ kids, not force them to sit and listen passively (they
won't).

~~~
samirmenon
Perhaps I am clouded by my own positive experiences with school, but I
disagree on two levels.

Firstly, your use of the phrase 'in the west' implies that outside of the
'west' there is some different, better elementary education system. This has
not been my experience in India, where capacity for rote memorization is
regarded as equivalent to intelligence from an early age. What countries fit
your boundaries of 'the west'?

Secondly, school serves as a valuable social and educational center to most
children. Even though elementary education is imperfect, it does not mean that
a viable solution is to simply do away with it. In fact, I think the social
interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to
developing social skills and friendships.

~~~
barry-cotter
>Secondly, school serves as a valuable social and educational center to most
children. Even though elementary education is imperfect, it does not mean that
a viable solution is to simply do away with it. In fact, I think the social
interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to
developing social skills and friendships.

Great, let's make primary school a place to park children so their parents can
go to work where children can do whatever the hell they want. These exist.
They are called Sudbury or democratic schools.

While I have your attention, some links.

Teaching arithmetic to children below sixth grade has either no effect or
negative effects, seeing as the extra education makes them worse at word
problems.[0][1]

Homework has no positive effects on learning in any non-mathematical subjects
and no positive effects whatsoever before middle school.[3]

[0][http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201003/whe...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201003/whe..).

[1] L. P. Benezet (1935/1936). The teaching of Arithmetic: The Story of an
Experiment. Originally published in Journal of the National Education
Association in three parts. Vol. 24, #8, pp 241-244; Vol. 24, #9, p 301-303; &
Vol. 25, #1, pp 7-8.

[2][http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775711...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775711000549)
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (Impact Factor: 0.46). 06/2011;
43(3):195-202. DOI: 10.1037/a0022697 ABSTRACT Although homeschooling is
growing in prevalence, its educational outcomes remain unclear. The present
study compared the academic achievements of homeschooled children with
children attending traditional public school. When the homeschooled group was
divided into those who were taught from organized lesson plans (structured
homeschoolers) and those who were not (unstructured homeschoolers), the data
showed that structured homeschooled children achieved higher standardized
scores compared with children attending public school. Exploratory analyses
also suggest that the unstructured homeschoolers are achieving the lowest
standardized scores across the 3 groups.

~~~
peterfirefly
Got a newer reference than Benezet 1936?

Got a reference where they tested it with good math teachers?

Has the study been replicated in a country with a different (better) math
tradition, such as France?

~~~
LunaSea
Not OP, but it wouldn't matter that a good math teacher would've had a more
positive effect.

Most teachers are shit at what they do and that won't change.

There are too many advantages in a lot of countries for becoming a teacher
(civil servant) - salary excluded.

~~~
nsmartt
Improving education involves improving the approaches used by teachers,
whether teachers already employed or new teachers. These kinds of things don't
change overnight, but they can be changed over generations. Studies are, in
theory, an effective way to determine what aspiring teachers should know and
apply.

I don't think driving down the advantages of becoming a teacher is an
effective way to improve performance. Many people interested in making a
difference would, rightfully, forgo being a teacher for their own sakes and
take a different approach.

------
fred_durst
_> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and
his master’s at Johns Hopkins_

Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and
use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them.

 _> I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with
essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a
year or so later than is expected._

I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families
from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree.

 _> I want them to remain free of social pressures to look, act, or think any
way but that which feels most natural to them._

Awesome how the author takes his past issues of "social pressures" and maps
them onto his kids. Wonder if he ever realized that "social pressures" are one
of the most natural things a child learns.

This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but
I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life.

~~~
pikachu_is_cool
Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in
disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's
parents in real life.

The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are
crippled socially.

It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own
eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own
> eyes it makes sense why this hasn 't caught on._

I doubt that. To me a more plausible and equally good explanation is that
schools are primarily places where parents can drop their kids off for half of
the day to be able to go to work. Homeschooling requires someone to stay at
home and do the schooling, which is becoming less and less affordable for most
of the people.

~~~
pikachu_is_cool
Yeah.... no. I know people who were more than financially able to do this, and
the kids still ended up messed up.

To reiterate, if you actually haven't seen this first-hand, it's best to keep
your mouth shut. Confirmation bias only makes this whole thing worse.

------
rdtsc
> Everything I learned felt abstract and standardized. It was a conditional
> knowledge that existed in separation from the richly textured world just
> beyond the school’s plate-glass windows, which, for all their transparency,
> felt like the bars of a prison cell.

Tell that story to a kid in Africa who has to walk miles to get to school and
the school might not have electricity or water and so on. They would say "So,
you're telling me, you have free transportation to school, teachers, computers
in ever classroom, air conditioned rooms, and you choose let your children
learn to carve 'beautiful long bows' instead?"

Sorry that is how I feel. I can't shake the feeling that this is elitist. Like
the article puts (as if pre-emptively trying to defend against a counter
argument) this is like living some "Jeffersonian fantasies" \-- that is
exactly what I see here.

At the end of the day they are dooming these children to live in an isolated
sheltered bubble. Which would have worked great in early settler days. Not
today. Today unless they keep in that bubble they will be controlled and owned
by those that understand how compounding interest rate works, how computers
works, how the legal system works, how lobbying works, how quarks work, how
genes work and so on.

Now with that said, it is their right to do it and it is nice to have that
choice. This is what makes it great to live in this country. I personally
think they are a little bit crazy for doing what they are doing.

~~~
tea9
My school has 1600 students but most of the building doesn't have air
conditioning. The school had federal money to install central air conditioning
but "borrowed" it to buy iPads for all the students. Then whatever they
intended to reimburse the money fell through. (This was illegal.)

Somehow a PE teacher manipulated his way to become the Director of Human
Resources for the district. He now lives in a million dollar house in the
nicest housing edition in the city. He divorced his wife and married a new
girl. She had no qualifications but he gave some 6-figure job in the school
district. He also got his mother a job.

The district hired a new CFO, who quickly realized the district had two sets
of books. He protested and was offered a bribe via an increased salary. He
went to the FBI and subsequently wore a wire. The school district concocted a
false sexual harassment charge against him and fired him.

He sued the school district. A federal grand jury was convened months ago but
so far nothing has happened. Maybe the FBI is waiting to indict the various
individuals involved once the civil suit is over. But it's been months and
maybe there will be no indictments.

There's about 75,000 people in my city. We are far from progressive and this
small town good ol' boy network has negatively effected our public schools.

The story doesn't even sound true but it's a great example of just how
corrupted and messed up public education is in some cities.

[http://www.stjoechannel.com/story/d/story/musser-files-
lawsu...](http://www.stjoechannel.com/story/d/story/musser-files-lawsuit-
against-sjsd/19919/ej3s1lfrlUewh0vTpdPEkg)

[http://www.stjoechannel.com/story/d/story/grand-jury-asks-
st...](http://www.stjoechannel.com/story/d/story/grand-jury-asks-st-joseph-
school-district-for-docu/33523/Tsp-k68CKE-fzlZ1gHkI5Q)

~~~
rdtsc
I can see how some towns have problems and how there are ridiculous testing
requirements.

But I also don't see "let's have kids learn to hunt, grow garlic and carve
long bows" as a viable alternative.

------
JDDunn9
Seriously? If unschooling were so great 3rd world countries would be
dominating the world.

Creativity is domain specific. Walking around the woods won't help you be
creative in solving math/engineering/science problems. You need a strong
background in the subject, and to see how other people solved similar
problems.

I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. Who's going
to hire someone who's educational experience is walking around the woods
unsupervised?

~~~
kennywinker
I think you're wrong on a bunch of points.

The reason developing countries aren't "dominating the world" is because of a
bunch of things, and the life of a kid from a developing country is very far
from the life of an unschooled kid in the west.

Unschooled kids (and I know a lot of them) in the west are usually fairly
privileges. If not economically (which definitely isn't always the case) then
they are privileged to have intelligent and thoughtful parents who have the
time, energy and interest to try to nurture a love of learning in them.

I also think you're wrong in regards to creativity. Creativity isn't domain
specific, but being able to apply your creativity does take a lot of domain
knowledge. You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought
in your head.

There are plenty of opportunities for unschooled kids to enter the mainstream
education system, if they need certification of some kind to work in their
field of interest. I know a good number of unschooled kids who became
biologists, computer scientists, etc. by going to college/university when it
became relevant.

~~~
nmrm
> You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your
> head.

I hear this a lot, and don't think it's at all true. It's pretty difficult to
get to phd-level background in an area without having some thoughts no one
else has explored yet. In fact I'm not sure it's even possible.

------
tatterdemalion
I don't understand how, on a site called "Hacker News," so many people seem
oblivious to how damaging the primary educational system is to young peoples'
minds and methods of thought. Unschooling doesn't mean not teaching children:
that's what happens in schools.

~~~
samirmenon
Is the elementary educational system truly "damaging" to young minds?

I think of my elementary education (which, mind you, was only 6 years ago) as
perhaps boring or tedious in some areas (like math, for me), while also
exciting and rewarding in others (science, learning to make friends, deal with
gossip, etc). I certainly don't think I have a very 'damaged' method of
thought now because of my elementary education.

I think that, on the whole, it was not at all damaging; in fact, it was
important to my development as a child.

~~~
OmarIsmail
Not sure how accurate your profile is, but if you're still 16 and thus in
high-school you may not appreciate just how different the real world is. And
that exactly is why it is so damaging.

In school there are a small number of people that are given authority over a
huge swath of your life completely arbitrarily. This affects how you act and
spend your time. This is completely opposite to how things work in the real
world.

Another issue is that you're surrounded primarily with people of the same age.
That is children/teenagers that similarly have little to no external life
experience. In the real world you are surrounded by people of many
demographics (age, ethnicity, background, etc).

Physical violence in white-collar workplaces (which is what I imagine most
readers here would be working at) is near non-existent vs being at school
where it's a very real threat for many people.

The concept of responsibility and bills. This is not directly about school,
but often a result of school. Because you're in school you don't really have
any bills of your own. You're placed in an artificial construct where your
parents take care of most of your major bills (housing, food) and you are not
forced to make your own income - and in fact many people are discouraged from
finding employment during their school years because it may "impact their
studies". So the essential life skills of managing a budget, balancing income
and bills, etc don't get learned at all.

You don't see yourself as "damaged" because you don't understand or imagine
what is possible outside of the school environment. While you can communicate
with your peers, how well can you communicate to managers in a company? Can
you sell a service or product to someone? Can you ask the right questions to
find out what someone's true pain point is and not get distracted by their
proposed solution?

If you left school right now (or 5 years ago) and had to make it on your own,
you'd obviously be a very very different person today. Is that person better
than you are now? Obviously that's impossible to say. But if that person
is/would be better, then you can argue that your current self is damaged
relatively speaking.

~~~
samirmenon
I'm actually quite hurt by this comment.

Firstly, I have worked for the past three years as a software developer. I've
had to deliver things to a manager, figure out exactly what a client wants,
and work collaboratively. I think that I've at least had a taste of the "real
world".

Secondly, the idea that I lack some kind of mental capability to "understand
or imagine what is possible outside of the school" is deeply flawed, and
frankly unfounded. In fact, the condescension that arises from this statement
is exactly the kind of attitude towards children that discourages them from
taking risks and exploring independently.

I hope the next time you talk to or meet a 16 year old, you don't assume that
they lack any ability to understand the "real world".

~~~
learc83
>I hope the next time you talk to or meet a 16 year old, you don't assume that
they lack any ability to understand the "real world".

 _Most_ 16 year olds in the developed world do lack an ability to understand
the "real world" (by that I mean the adult experience) because 16 year olds
lack adult responsibility by default. Having a part time job is not the same
as working to provide food and shelter for you and your family. At 16 your
parents shield you from the freedoms and consequences that come with being an
adult, and with no experience of those freedoms and consequences, you can't
really internalize what it means to be an adult.

In addition, the human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, so your
judgment at 16 is fundamentally flawed.

There's nothing wrong with being 16, but in 10 years you'll look back and
laugh at 90% of what you _know_ right now.

~~~
samirmenon
Absolutely. I hope that every year of my life, I look back, and laugh at the
things I 'knew' 10 years ago. Is it the same for you?

The oft-repeated idea of an "underdeveloped" teenage brain is a bit old.
Scientific American did a piece on it in 2007.
([http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-
te...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-teen-brain/))

~~~
learc83
>Absolutely. I hope that every year of my life, I look back, and laugh at the
things I 'knew' 10 years ago. Is it the same for you?

To an extent yes, but that slows down the older you get.

>The oft-repeated idea of an "underdeveloped" teenage brain is a bit old.
Scientific American did a piece on it in 2007.

That article itself is outdated. There are numerous studies done since then
that support my assertion.

Here's a few articles.

2011
[http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm](http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm)

2011 [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-
brains/dob...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-
text)

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1411647...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708)

[http://phys.org/news/2010-12-brain-fully-
mature-30s-40s.html](http://phys.org/news/2010-12-brain-fully-
mature-30s-40s.html)

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044371370...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443713704577601532208760746)

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1241194...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468)

------
socrates1998
There are a lot of things I like about this, but I am do see some issues.

I think the boys are learning a lot of very interesting skills, but I think
they would struggle a lot with becoming lawyers and doctors like the author
claims.

My biggest concern would be their reading skills, and later, their advanced
math skills.

He says they read fine, but reading is something that must be done almost
every day for years to get to a highly literate point. Literacy and reading
comprehension are essential skills to navigating the modern world.

I am just not sure what kind of jobs or careers they will be prepared for
later on.

I mean, it sounds great and I would love to have done a lot of this stuff as a
kid, but I just see issues if the parents don't really stay on top of it.

If you grow up hunting, fishing and farming, you don't exactly prepare
yourself to be a doctor, lawyer or engineer.

On the other hand, if you have the reading and maths skills, you can still be
a hunter/fisher/farmer.

~~~
ejfox
I was unschooled, and I think that it really depends on what passion your kid
has (which you can't predict, but can impact). If your child becomes really
interested in the law, he will have unlimited time to pursue that goal. If
your child is really interested in math, he will be able to study that in a
much deeper way than someone similarly into math attending public or private
school. He can learn not only at his own pace, but his own depth.

My younger brother, also unschooled, quickly began reading so he could use the
computer and google things (like funny YouTube videos) but later things like
free drawing applications (independently finding and installing Inkscape) and
emulators (learning on his own how to install, find, and download, and play
emulations of old NES and N64 games, around age 8) - which in my mind requires
not only reading and literacy but deep comprehension. My point is, their
passions will drive their knowledge. I think if you have a passion for
technology, math, etcetera it will inevitably rub off on your children. You
need to convey to them a passion for the subject, and a hunger for knowledge.

~~~
PeterisP
Much depends on the options that the kid even considers. If they're growing up
on a farm environment, then their natural curiosity will drive them towards
the skills that are useful and interesting in that environment - from the
article it appears that they are learning a lot of skills that are useful for
a farmer or a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, since it brings immediate feedback
and is consistent with the opportunities that they have there.

Have they interacted with lawyers, saxophone players, programmers, art
historians, ballet dancers or microbiologists in any meaningful way to
practically consider it a viable lifestyle that they could understand and
identify with, to consider it as a normal available option? Given their
current situation, will they do so in any time soon? A few years in college
would do it but that's a bit too late. You can't really understand if you'll
like a profession if you haven't seen/felt how the daily life of it looks
like, that's why this choice is often dominated by your local environment and
public role models.

The point of general education is that kids are in the process of 'searching
for themselves' and a large part of them don't and can't choose their future
direction until near-adulthood or later. If at the age of nine you're
consciously preparing to be an astronaut ninja fireman or unconsciously
preparing to be a farmer, then it doesn't really correlate with "what your
passion is" and what you'll want to do when you're 20 or 30. And at that time
point, if you have significant gaps in key education areas, then it cuts off
your options. If after puberty you figure out you'd really like to be a
doctor, and you spent two hours per month (as the article states) on science
and math, then you're simply not getting in med school.

------
idlewords
If you hunt them for sport from childhood, the survivors get wily indeed.

------
mjhouse
Except I did this (almost exactly this) when I was a kid, and it left holes in
my education that you could drive a bus through.

------
xexers
The author implies that self directly learning is always better than
classroom. I can think of examples where this is not true.

For example, I know dozens of people who were never formally taught how to
touch type on a computer keyboard. Most of them simply learned to type on
their own by using the keyboard. They often type with 2 fingers on each hand
(index and middle). They get to a level that they feel is "good enough" which
is usually about 20-30 words per minute. However, with that approach, they
will NEVER get up to 60-100 words per minute which you can easily do if you
were taught to properly touch type. I often feel these people are hindered by
the way they learned how to type.

I often prefer to learn from experts, which sometimes means forgoing learning
how to do it myself and simply being taught the "right way". I know seeing the
words "the right way" may make some people cringe, but there are a lot of
things in this world to which that expression applies. If the kids want to
challenge that after they have learned the "right way", be my guest... and I
hope you find a better way.

my $0.02

~~~
judk
Eh, not really. Most computer-typing professionals (programmers etc) learned
touch typing by natural practice. People who don't type much and never
practice don't get fast. School definitely not required even for intense
practice.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
A person can go a lifetime as a typing cripple. It takes work to get out of
bad habits and into good ones. And its a delay-gratification process - you're
screwed up for a week or so as you deconstruct your typing reflexes.

OR, they can take a class or buy a learn-to-type book, bite the bullet and
study/practice.

------
samirmenon
This actually seems astoundingly misguided and dangerous.

One of the unique, defining qualities of humanity is an ability to build on
the knowledge and experiences of generations before us. Why throw all of the
knowledge of the past 5,000 years of human civilization out?

When will they learn math, or science, or history? How can you become a
lawyer, doctor, or engineer without learning these subjects? Can they really
be postponed until college?

~~~
spiralganglion
These subjects can be learned from people who are actually passionate about
them, whether in person or remotely.

My uncle is a University history professor, and I learn more about world
history from his uncontrollable desire to constantly relate every event in our
lives to some event historical, than I have from any in-school study.

No sense in having to spend so long covering the first eight years of school
arithmetic — the material is achingly simple, and can be taught with colour
and passion in an afternoon by someone who truly loves it, to someone who is
truly keen to learn.

If you give a self-motivated and eager kid access to someone who actually
cares deeply for the material (unlike most every school teacher I've known),
they'll be able to convey the principals and tenets of the field quickly and
effectively.

When facts are needed, we have the best source of facts ever in the history of
humanity: the internet, and the all the world's experts it puts you in touch
with.

~~~
samirmenon
Do the kids in the article have access to the internet? Do they use it?

~~~
nekopa
Their dad writes a blog. So they do have access, and maybe they do use it,
maybe not.

------
bayesianhorse
The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries,
every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future
earning power.

You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who
don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and
their emotions.

~~~
lutusp
> The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries,
> every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and
> future earning power.

That may be true, but it omits a control group -- a comparison with people who
don't attend school. It therefore lacks a scientific basis for comparison.
Therefore it's not a "case against abandoning conventional schooling", it is a
case where meaningful science is required to inform public policy.

> Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit
> still and discipline themselves and their emotions.

Some argue that the ADHD epidemic results from the very unnatural conditions
in schools, conditions that are barely tolerable to otherwise normal children,
and the ADHD diagnosis unjustly shifts responsibility from the oppressive
school and educational system to the children.

I'm certainly not saying this is the only explanation, just that no clear
conclusion can be made on present evidence.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding
that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a
"control group" with exactly zero time in school, but plenty of datapoints,
and the "dosage effect" is undeniable. That is scientific enough.

"Some argue [about cause of ADHD]" reveals that you just quote the scientific
method if you want to argue a point, and don't really understand it. ADHD has
been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine.

"Present evidence" includes ADHD being a consistent syndrome in Neuroanatomy,
EEG, fMRI, genetic studies, and psychological testing. There are even
successful treatments for it. The most important factor in ADHD is genetic,
other factors include early injuries, environmental toxins, alcohol exposure
in the womb, low birth weights - very clear evidence that there are causes for
ADHD that a school system can't be changed to prevent.

What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't
accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions
of cases?

~~~
lutusp
> Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means.

In human studies, the absence of a control group invalidates the result. This
is human studies 101.

As to science meaning what I think it does:

[http://arachnoid.com/building_science](http://arachnoid.com/building_science)

> _That is scientific enough._

Spoken like a true psychologist. Observational studies without an effort to
craft a testable, falsifiable theory, an explanation, for the observations is
not science. If this were not so, astrology would be a science.

But since I can anticipate your reply, let me give you an example. Doctor
Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake
a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes
the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always
recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his
breakthrough?

The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd,
patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually
learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and
effect. It's the same with psychology.

> What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't
> accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions
> of cases?

One study with a control group and scientific discipline, would be worth
thousands of typical psychology studies that don't try to move from
description to testable, falsifiable explanation. As it happens, the NIMH has
now accepted this view. In a recent policy change, the NIMH has ruled that the
DSM, psychology and psychiatry's "bible", may no longer be accepted as the
basis for scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no
scientific content:

[http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-
psychiat...](http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-
bible-anymore)

But, since you think that the quantity of studies make up for their poor
quality, will you also defend the many thousands of recovered memory cases on
the same ground -- that, since there were so many of them, surely they must
refer to something real? And that therefore Beth Rutherford really was raped
by her father and forced to abort using a coat hanger -- until the day someone
discovered she was a virgin?

Or how about Asperger Syndrome? A few years ago it seemed like a real thing,
with thousands of confirmed diagnoses (for those of you who think counting
cases makes up for poor discipline). Now, because of indiscipline and
widespread abuse, it's been voted out of the DSM and therapists are
discouraged from using it.

> There are even successful treatments for it.

Yes, just as there is for the common cold -- see above. If you actually
understood science you would realize that ADHD means precisely nothing until a
cause is uncovered.

> ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in
> medicine.

Compared to a microscope image of a pathogen, followed by development of a
vaccine, which either succeeds or fails, in a properly designed study _with a
control group?_

ADHD is located in the vast terrain of unscientific psychology, grouped with
things that are discussed but for which there is no solid evidence nor known
cause. The NIMH has taken the first step by denying use of the DSM in
scientific research. The next step will be advances in neuroscience and the
eventual replacement of psychology with neuroscience.

This doesn't say there's nothing to ADHD, or that a real cause might not
eventually be uncovered. It says psychologists have no idea what they're
talking about.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term
experiment is completely unethical. You can't ruin a child's future just to
make a point. Such an experiment should never be conducted.

I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly. I don't understand
how you could be writing so much nonsense about it if you even took five
Minutes to read the wikipedia article.

ADHD medication has been tested in double blind studies in hundreds of
thousands of cases, in dozens of seperate studies, for several different
substances. It doesn't get any better.

ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires _PREDICTS_ anatomical, physiological
and psychological differences. It also predicts negative consequences: higher
risk of depression, higher risk for delinquent behavior, low academic
achievement (compared to IQ), lack of social skills etc.

And many of these predicted (and well-observed) consequences can be prevented
by medication and therapy. How much more "scientific" can it get?

Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as
dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism".

~~~
lutusp
> Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term
> experiment is completely unethical.

Yes, I agree, and that is why the required science cannot be done -- the
science you think exists in psychology.

> I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly.

I have researched it, I know this topic much better than you do, and at
present ADHD is firmly in the pseudoscience category. This is not to say it's
not real, it is to say that no one has any idea what it is, and we cannot
objectively diagnose it. This means it's open to various kinds of abuse, in
particular if its diagnosis relies on self-reporting and questionnaires, the
bane of modern psychology.

> It doesn't get any better.

Science is better. But to understand that, you would have to understand
science.

> ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires PREDICTS anatomical, physiological
> and psychological differences.

Questionnaires? Self-reporting? This is worse than I thought. You show me a
microphotograph of a pathogen (or a distinctly abnormal group of brain cells,
or a cluster of genetic defects, or anything _objective_ at all) that causes
ADHD, and I will grant that the required science has begun. Until then, an
ADHD diagnosis depends on how a questionnaire is filled out, which means
people can get the diagnosis if they want it and if they know what to say in
the questionnaire (or the reverse, if that's their preference).

> Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as
> dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism".

You're obviously unaware that Thomas Insel, chairman of the NIMH, holds the
same views on this topic that I do:

Link: [http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at
best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength
of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has
ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. _The weakness is
its lack of validity._ "

"Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM
diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, _not
any objective laboratory measure._ In the rest of medicine, this would be
equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or
the quality of fever ... _Patients with mental disorders deserve better._ "

Ten years ago I was having the same kinds of conversations about Asperger
Syndrome. Now Asperger Syndrome is gone, discredited. Does this mean that ADHD
is another phony condition? Not likely, but no one knows, because no one is
doing the required science.

I'll say it again for the record -- ADHD will become a real condition when we
know what causes it, and not before.

Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations. Psychology is stuck at
the description stage, and has been for decades.

~~~
bayesianhorse
>I have researched it, I know this topic much better than you do, and at
present ADHD is firmly in the pseudoscience category.

You refuse all the decades and heaps of evidence by some summary hand-waving
over what science is supposed to be. The idea, that double blind trials are
required to call anything science is ridiculous, and you prove it by not
admitting any double-blind trials as evidence in favor of the existence of
ADHD...

Your rant about the DSM is completely off topic. Which might be explainable by
your obvious complete lack of medical training, and arguably little
understanding about scientific methods in general. Otherwise I just can't
explain why you want to prove the non-existence of ADHD by saying that some
diagnostic manual (which isn't the only way or manual to diagnose ADHD, btw)
is not useful in medical research. You don't even acknowledge the difference
between medical research and medical practice.

There is a course by coursera called "Pay attention: ADHD through the
lifetime". This course offers a thorough examination about diagnostic
criteria, symptoms, neuroanatomy and treatment. ADHD is a physical thing that
can be shown physically.

If you were inclined to listen to scientific evidence, you could go to google
scholar and read any of the dozens of double-blind studies where children are
diagnosed with ADHD, get treatment, and improve in several objective and
subjective measures.

But, probably, while thousands of real scientists aggree on the validity of
these studies, you will probably find some reason, why this evidence is not
_clear enough_ to draw conclusions you donb't like.

"DSM contains conditions which don't have physical/physiological
manifestations" is not proof for ADHD not existing. For one thing, because
these physical and physiological features have been well studied...

~~~
lutusp
> You refuse all the decades and heaps of evidence by some summary hand-waving
> over what science is supposed to be.

Yes -- myself and the NIMH. We're on the same wavelength. You need to learn
this topic, find out what's going on in your own field. Your ignorance is
embarrassing. And there is no "science is supposed to be" trope -- science has
been clearly defined in the law, laws meant to keep Creationism out of public
school classrooms, laws with requirements psychology cannot meet.

> Your rant about the DSM is completely off topic.

Say what? The DSM is the source for information about ADHD. NO DSM, no ADHD.
This was true about Asperger's as well, until it became too embarrassing and
was removed from the new edition of the DSM. Asperger's has recently been
discarded _by being removed from the DSM_.

> I just can't explain why you want to prove the non-existence of ADHD ...

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said ADHD is not real, I said
it's not science, and until it is, the NIMH will refuse to accept it or allow
funds to be disseminated to study it. Those are the facts.

Prove me wrong -- locate where I claimed that ADHD isn't real. In other words,
imitate a scientist and locate some evidence for your false claims.

It's not as though ADHD information is difficult to locate:

Link: [http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/adhd/problems-
overdiagnosis-...](http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/adhd/problems-
overdiagnosis-and-overprescribing-adhd)

Title: "Problems of Overdiagnosis and Overprescribing in ADHD"

Quote: "Doubt and confusion as to where this disorder fits into the general
spectrum of illness further feeds the general perception that _ADHD is a
socially constructed disorder rather than a valid neurobiological disorder_.
-- With the production of more stimulants every year, worries about the
increased availability of stimulants for abuse and diversion rise as well.
Rising production rates are cited as _proof of stimulant overprescribing by
physicians and indirect evidence of the overdiagnosis of ADHD among
children_."

I emphasize the above doesn't constitute science evidence for or against
anything, only that your claim that ADHD is a solidly established disorder
backed by reliable research is, simply put, a lie.

> If you were inclined to listen to scientific evidence ...

 _There is no scientific evidence_ , and it's time for your to learn something
about science. This is why the NIMH has decided to reject the DSM -- it's
become an embarrassment.

> ... you will probably find some reason, why this evidence is not clear
> enough to draw conclusions you donb't like.

AS does the NIMH, and for excellent reasons -- scientifically clueless people
like you who take positions out of ignorance.

Prove me wrong. Name the property that all scientific findings and theories
must possess to be regarded as science (a property included in the laws that
define science). It can be expressed in a single word, and it's something
psychological research lacks in droves.

> "DSM contains conditions which don't have physical/physiological
> manifestations" is not proof for ADHD not existing.

And? I never claimed anywhere that ADHD doesn't exist. I do say that, until we
know what it is, we cannot meaningfully treat it. And the above quotation from
the literature fully supports my position.

Now stop lying. ADHD is neither true nor false, it's in limbo because _there
is no science_ being done.

> For one thing, because these physical and physiological features have been
> well studied...

So your claim is that if something is well studied, then ipso facto it must be
real. If that were true, it would make astrology real -- it's certainly been
well studied.

Learn science -- stop embarrassing yourself.

~~~
bayesianhorse
I think I have to give up on you. You are refusing double-blind studies as
evidence. You are misrepresenting NIMH's stance on DSM because you don't know
the difference between diagnostics and research. You are quoting minority
opinions as proven fact, without actual proof, of course.

> Doubt and confusion as to where this disorder fits into the general spectrum
> of illness further feeds the general perception that ADHD is a socially
> constructed disorder rather than a valid neurobiological disorder.

This is actually exactly what I am talking about. The article worries not
about ADHD overdiagnosis, but about the public perception of overdiagnosis -
while the author is pretty clear that it is a valid neurobiological disorder,
and that there is no evidence for overprescription.

Are you a scientist? I sure hope not...

~~~
lutusp
> You are refusing double-blind studies as evidence.

You are lying -- there are no double-blind scientific studies of ADHD, one,
because they would be unethical as you pointed out earlier, and two, without
knowing the cause of ADHD, no such studies are even possible.

> You are misrepresenting NIMH's stance on DSM

YOU ARE LYING. I quoted the NIMH directly and linked to their decision. The
DSM will no longer be accepted as the basis for scientific research, because
it only lists symptoms, not causes -- required for science. Read it again:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

> You are quoting minority opinions ...

NIMH Director Insel is a "minority opinion"? Which planet are you visiting
from? Insel and his predecessor Steven Hyman at the NIMH, and Allen Frances,
editor of DSM-IV, and many others, all agree that psychiatry and psychology
are in deep trouble with respect to the issue of science and evidence, and all
agree that the DSM needs to be abandoned.

> while the author is pretty clear that it is a valid neurobiological
> disorder,

You just quoted an article that says the opposite. You are lying about the
words in front of your face. Also, since the cause is unknown, anyone claiming
that it's a valid disorder is contributing to folk tales instead of science.

Again, for the record, this is not to say there's no ADHD, only that there's
no science for or against.

> Are you a scientist? I sure hope not...

The sure sign of someone who doesn't know how to participate in a debate about
issues.

------
ryanmarsh
We homeschool our children and for a year we tried unschooling. My wife's
cousins were all unschooled. There is definitely merit to the approach,
although done right (unschooling) it can be much harder for the parent than it
looks. Done wrong it can set your children up for a fantastic career barely
making ends meet. So at it's worse it's no worse than compulsory public
education. We're much bigger fans of alt-schooling (or home schooling as it
were).

We've settled on a curriculum of the classics and are part of a home schooling
group organized around said curriculum. The kids meet weekly and one of the
parents facilitates each year, each "grade" level. Even though there is a
"tutor" (facilitator) it requires significant parental involvement.

The most unsettling aspect to alt-schooling in general are the ridiculous
things that people say to you. It's not that people are stupid, it's that
there is so much they know that just isn't so. It is utterly fruitless to
debate the benefits of alt-schooling with people who have not been outside the
box. You cannot know how rich, valuable, and academically positive alt-
schooling is on average. So you ask questions like, "what about socialization"
as if it's a good thing to be in an asylum run by the inmates, or "what about
college" as if Harvard doesn't want someone who studied latin from age 7. I
digress.

To be fair I feel the need to share my background. I'm a high-school dropout.
I subsequently aced the GED, along with the others who took the test with me.
I did high school at a "blue ribbon" public school. Everything before that was
at a small church-supported private school. We were by no means wealthy, and
tuition was as cheap as it could have possibly been. Still my parents both had
to work so that we could go. In the private school we did Algebra in the sixth
grade, I read at a post-high school reading level in the third grade. It was
intellectually stimulating and a wonderful nurturing environment. When I got
to public school I found a prison for the mind. The teachers, while seemingly
more educated seemed either not to care or to be overwhelmed with things other
than teaching. The latter must have been as soul crushing for them as
corporate work. It was soul crushing for me to be there. At first I began to
advance ahead of my peers. I started taking advanced classes and realized that
they were just more of the same mediocrity. At 16 I got a job programming and
at 17 I dropped out. The rest, as they say, is history. I now manage a team of
over a hundred programmers. I have a passionate hatred of the public education
_system_. I didn't wind up digging ditches and I believe that it is 100%
because of my early education experience in that humble little school that was
not unlike a homeschool club.

I'm not debating the merits of your public education experience. I'm not
saying you wasted your time or didn't come out ok. I'm not saying you aren't a
good person or your teachers weren't either. I'm saying it can be better and
it's amazing how little effort it can require. Life will not fall apart if you
don't take AP Math and join the Key Club.

We've all been told the same lie, work hard in school so you can get good
grades so you can go to a good college so you can get a good job so you can
work hard so you can become CEO. Alt-schooling can instead prepare one well
for the world where "humans need not apply".

~~~
ScottBurson
Fantastic comment overall. This surprises me, though:

> Done wrong [unschooling] can set your children up for a fantastic career
> barely making ends meet.

In a world where many people change careers several times as adults, this
seems unnecessarily pessimistic. Okay, maybe their first career won't be that
lucrative. Most people don't make that much in their twenties anyway. But that
doesn't mean they won't find something better eventually.

In the economy of the 21st century, I think pursuing one's own passions is a
likelier route to success than trying to follow the well-worn paths. No,
there's no guarantee of success that way, but the well-worn paths offer no
guarantees either. What I think is important in childhood and adolescence is
to spend enough time and effort on _something_ to come away with a sense of
mastery, so that you feel that you can master anything else that you care to,
and you have some idea of what's required to do that. But it doesn't matter
what the "something" is. It's the _experience_ that counts, not the
information; information is free now.

Still and all, I agree partially with what you're saying. If I had kids, there
would be things I would want them to know. (Many of these are not taught in
any school, like how to deconstruct advertising -- an essential skill in
modern life -- but that's another discussion.) I would certainly try to
interest them in many topics. But I would try to do it at the right moment --
if they have no interest, it's not the right moment -- and I would also very
much try to support them in developing their own interests.

I guess the unschooling idea could go too far if parents took it as devaluing
their own potential contributions to their children's learning opportunities.
Maybe some of that tends to happen. I don't think John Holt meant it that way.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Thanks. The reason I said that unschooling done wrong can set your children up
for not being able to make ends meet was perhaps a bit harsh but based on
experience. Out of my wife's six cousins they all regret being unschooled. I
don't blame them. Their father didn't do it out if some sense of
enlightenment. He is an unintelligent man who made his livelihood working with
his hands. Unfortunately it's much harder to make a livable wage these days in
a job where you sweat. Other than building a cabin (a very well made cabin I
might add) his children are weak at reading and writing and are horrible at
math. His daughter wanted to be a nurse but couldn't make it through nursing
school, one of his sons is a prison guard, the gregarious one is a fantastic
jewelry salesman. His kids have a fantastic work ethic but will likely never
come close to their full income earning potential. Had the parents focused
more on academics and less on grooming horses they might not have to work in
retail, a prison, or be restricted by a spouses earning potential.

The great benefit of unschooling is that you raise emotionally very well
rounded kids. I don't know what it is about the outdoors but it sure does
work.

~~~
ScottBurson
I take your point -- unschooling is perhaps best done by parents who are at
least self-educated, who are intelligent people, curious about the world, and
enthusiastic readers themselves. If the parents can't feed the kids' minds in
_some_ way, they should recognize that and find someone else in the
neighborhood who can (other parents, perhaps), or use some source of lesson
plans, or _something_.

In this case it sounds like it might be too generous to call this unschooling
-- it sounds more like simple neglect. If parents aren't unschooling out of a
conviction that they will actually give their kids a better education than the
schools would, why are they doing it? Sounds more like sheer laziness to me.

Anyway, the question now is, what can these kids, now adults, do about their
situation? I'll hazard a guess that they watch as much TV as the average
American. If that's anywhere close, I'd say the first step is to get the TV
_out of the house_. That will free up several hours a day. The second step is
to get online. That will give them a reason to read and write. Even just doing
that a few hours a day will, in a few years, change their lives. There's
Wikipedia, there's Khan Academy, ... well, I don't have to explain this to
you, I'm sure.

I can't accept that it's too late for them to turn this around, but it will
take quite a bit of initiative on their part. If their work ethic is as good
as it seems, maybe it's possible.

I don't know how close you are to them, but if you have any ability to reach
them, I would encourage you to try. Their lives could be very different in ten
years. I know that and I hope you know that, but they don't (else they would
already be working on it).

I know I'm being presumptuous here. Please forgive me if I'm belaboring the
obvious. I hate to see wasted potential.

------
deckiedan
I was "home educated" \- the typically British middle ground. Not "home
school" (school at home) and not unschooling. But self-educated / family
educated at home, for the whole of highschool level. We'd just moved country,
and didn't want to jump into a new school system straight away. It worked
pretty well for us. I spent a lot of time learning to program and play music,
I joined a local drama group, played in the church band, the town marching
band, and taught myself to juggle. My brother did loads of piano, singing, and
IT stuff. He's now working as the IT and music teacher at a local private
school (after having gone on to do his BA and MA in Theology, as well as a
teacher-training certificate), and I'm working as in a non-profit doing all
kinds of things. We decided, my brother, my parents, and I, to use a
curriculum for a few years, which allowed us to get International
Baccalaureate equivalents, which was useful for my brother with going on to
Uni, but useless to me. We learned a lot of useful stuff though.

I learned all the sine / cosine stuff around age 10, as I was trying to write
a computer game and needed to move things around circles, so asked my mum
about it, who asked her friends on the home-educating-parents email list, and
eventually someone helped. (This being in the late 90s). I wanted to learn it,
so I did. I can still remember everything I need to know about those because
it was interesting to me at the time. I never learned to spell at school. I
was awful, always in the lowest group in class. Until I wasn't doing spelling
tests, and just writing on my own at home on the computer, and kept getting
annoyed at the little red squiggle under half my words. My brain eventually
learned it was quicker and less distracting to my writing to learn the correct
spellings rather than having to go back and correct them.

I do think a certain amount of "education" is required for a sensible life.
Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, etc. But once you've learned to read,
and if you've had a love of books instilled into you, you'll probably pick up
most stuff you really want to learn along the way. And there's no _real_
reason to force any of those skills at any particular age. My brother learned
to read at about 3 and a half, as I was learning in kindergarten, he decided
to too. I have another friend who simply wasn't interested, and didn't learn
until about 8 and a half. But then he learned to read and write in about 2
months flat.

Kids are all different. Public education was a brilliant, wonderful
institution to help move millions of families out of poverty and enforced
unskilled labour. But once you've moved a society out of that state, education
needs to be much less of a "life support" type system, and become more of a
individualised therapy / explorative / personal journey.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I learned all the sine / cosine stuff around age 10, as I was trying to
> write a computer game and needed to move things around circles (...) I
> wanted to learn it, so I did. I can still remember everything I need to know
> about those because it was interesting to me at the time._

Just like me. I learned it around 13, because I wanted to figure out how to
rotate sprites and move them around other sprites; I remember spending long
hours looking at a math book and drawing pictures with a pencil. When I
finally grokked the proper transformations, I was extremely excited, and I
remembered that math forever since. Pretty much every other thing I learned
for game development I understand well and remember 'till now.

------
nether
Isn't it better to keep your kid inside and teach him to code?

