"My parents dont let me watch the news": reflections on 11+ interviews I have carried out

Interesting how the discussions have evolved on here!

My point was that gifted children tend to seek news/info out regardless so, unless you put a padlock on the iPad/PC/laptop, they're going to see it whether you like it or not.

I also think it is worth noting that protecting children from upsetting things is sometimes the source of anxiety in children. Just like those parents who hover around their children in playgrounds often end up makign their children afraid of taking risks and making them anxious.

I remember reading somewhere (can't find the source right now) that as a society we have always always told stories/sung songs, aspects of which would frightening (e.g. the original Brother Grimm fairytales; songs etc) to children and they serve a purpose in ensuring children are ready for the world. Maybe a sense of 'at least our immediate lives aren't too bad, nothing to fearetc;?

Generally speaking, and this is anecdotal, the children I know who are not exposed to news and generally protected (e.g. not letting them watch TV programmes other kids watch if they're slightly too young; being out and about when teenagers) are the kids who are the most anxious.

Maybe the protection comes from parents who are naturally anxious themselves (personality trait - they see harm everywhere) and that their children are therefore more sensitive to the news hence self regulating it for their children because of that. OR these children are genetically more disposed to being sensitive/anxiuos.

But by exposing children (or responding to it, if they seek it out themselves) to reality, and discussing it, you are ensuring they feel ready for the world. It doesn't mean you force feed them news about rape/murder etc.

Having to step out of a 'bubble' is much more frightening than feeling that you're part of the world - that which is bad but mostly that which is good - and in the knowledge that you can process it by talking about it in a safe environment.

Where has the OP gone? I assume the OP does not have children herself!

IMO opinion the news is not suitable viewing for children at all.

Op some dc have much saddness and despair in thier lives everyday and the news is usually a sensationalist media product designed to sell.

I wouldn't presume to know why some dc are shielded from the news.

They have thier entire lives to listen / be exposed to vicious humans setting their own children like dogs on other children.
Or mad dictators causing fear and misery around the whole world.
Etc etc.

What else would they see on the news then?

What news have you been watching lately if you haven't seen any of that?

Your argument that interest in current affairs is a sign par excellence of curiosity in very bright children is actually very specifically related to the sort of schools these children are applying to.
...as a filter for a popular selective public school that no doubt feeds Oxbridge and top Universities, asking a 10 year old to discuss a recent subject in the news is an excellent way to determine intellectual curiosity in current events.

You've put the cart before the horse here.

It's the school's mission and identity that prompts the assumption that a very able child will naturally show an interest in current affairs, not the other way round.

You've offered no evidence that children who are very able, very promising gravitate naturally toward an interest in current affairs, and no evidence that exposure to the news is going to result in an increase in critical thinking ability.

Hi @mathanxiety

I asked MN to withdraw my last response. I think as long as you insist I've posted anything to the effect children of 10 should watch 'war, mayhem and natural disasters' , I can't continue to engage. Sorry.

@DaddyPhD

You are seriously underestimating the impact of visual images on impressionable minds if you think an endless parade of disasters, warfare, and mayhem, accompanied by the solemn intoning of the British TV reporter wringing the utmost pathos out of each situation won't suggest that there are parts of the world that are unlike home in quite unmistakeable ways.

There are far better ways of teaching the colonial history of the west than exposure to the nightly news. A fit for purpose national history curriculum would have a much wider audience and a deeper effect on the future body politic. If that's the major concern here, then that should be a priority, not the reinforcing of a divide between state and private education, academic and plodder, that you get when you encourage the belief that dabbling in current affairs at age 10 is appropriate for bright children with aspirational families.

Interest in current affairs is not the most useful way to identify a curious child either - it's problematic as part of an evaluation process because it can often be the result of a canny parent's gaming of the interview system. It surely isn't a huge challenge to a bright parent to figure out what a bastion of the Establishment is going to be looking for in an admission interview.

The development of critical thinking skills is a separate matter. It's not necessary to watch the news at age ten to develop critical thinking skills. No specific body of human knowledge is going to enhance critical thinking skills, apart perhaps from the appropriate study of literature, philosophy, or history at ever more complex levels as students advance through the teenage years and their intellectual capacity develops. Telling children the west was bad or good or any point in between isn't teaching history, nor is it teaching critical thinking skills.

Assessment of critical thinking levels can be done using any number of available tests featuring topic-neutral information both relevant and irrelevant, which the student can sift through to provide answers to various questions. Yes, a student could practice. If word got out that students were expected to do this sort of exercise in an interview, that would definitely happen. This would presumably be a productive exercise regardless of the interview outcome, given the importance of critical thinking skills.

Yeah, Dawkins is an arrogant prat though.

I've only advocated encouraging children who want to find out about the world, not 'forcing' them to watch the news.

Poltical debate and seeking out the news is something that many bright children do, its something that many gifted children do and my stance is encourage this in your children.

You can't force it.

And sorry, if someone tells me they believe in God or The Force, they are delusional. A delusion, that Dawkins defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

I wouldn't say that to their face, I'd smile and say good for you.

Because war and famine and political corruption in the developing world did not develop in isolation, its inextricably linked to western colonialism for hundreds of years.

That translates you ensure your children don't believe in a cartoon like vision of the world that the West is civilised and outside of the West are savages.

Nothing to do with forcing your children to watch war or famine, certainly not watching natural disaters.

I think you're having a straw man argument here.

My mother also grew up on a farm and saw the type of thing you describe. She could not bear the screams of pigs being slaughtered, found it extremely sad and disturbing. She never ate bacon, ham or pork during her long life. She was a very well-balanced, competent, cheerful oerson
in all other regards.
People are different. Some can find events they witness as chidren traumatising and the memories can remain with them.
Just so you know.

Just adding this for anyone still following the thread who is interested in helping their kids learn to think critically and independently:

click through for a higher quality printable version:

get.futurefocusedlearning.net/critical-thinking-cheatsheet

@DaddyPhD

You argue me stating a child of ten should know about corruption in gov, weirdly you say this somehow contradicts the importance of critical thinking ??

If I could figure out what exactly you are driving at here in this sentence, maybe I could have a stab at answering you. I have a strong suspicion that you have misread something I posted.

Question, what do you understand by the term critical thinking?

There are a lot of definitions. The area is one characterised by ongoing debate, and definitions are evolving. At its most basic level, it's reflective thinking (Dewey's definition).
I also like Francis Bacon's, from 1605:
"For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture."

One last thing, what's a bald statement?
A bald statement or assertion is one not backed up by evidence. It's an opinion, not an argument.

Statements concerning the necessity for children to watch the nightly news fall into this category when all they have to recommend them is the fact that you did this as a child. Statements asserting or implying that ten year old children are capable of deriving meaningful training in critical thinking from news-watching are similarly not backed up by evidence.

Of course, @PinkInARow being a Jedi as a religion is 'real' in terms of some people's lived experiences, doesn't mean the 'The Force' is real as some believe. I linked belief in a higher being to racism to show how such a belief while it can be studied, be 'real' etc, is all bullshit. OR are you saying we can scientifically study if God is up there?

@DaddyPhD
The opinion you stated on religion/ racism is not evidence of the open mindedness one would hope to encounter in someone advocating the importance of critical thinking and defending the decision of parents to expose their children to the media product that is called 'the news', moreover someone presenting himself as a poster child for the value of exposing children to political debate and a healthy serving of news daily.

Your paragraph is not evidence of one of the basic elements of critical thought either, namely, the ability to not simply make stuff up or put words into other people's mouths.
OR are you saying we can scientifically study if God is up there?
Nope, @PinkInARow neither stated nor implied any such thing.

And how is watching endless scenes of war, famine, and political dysfunction in Africa or Haiti or any other non 'western' theatre achieving any other effect?

"Calling the whole continent of Africa (54 hugely different countries) as endless scenes of war and political dysfunction and ingoring the endless scenes of war and political dysfunction in the West - is a pretty Western centric, colonised view."
@DaddyPhD
I'm probably most interested in the leap from my comment to your interpretation.

The nightly news shows scenes of war, famine, political dysfunction, rape, kidnapping, and much more from parts of the world not considered 'western'.

Would talking to your children about medieval African empires, sampling the cuisine of different African regions, listening to current day music, looking at art and artefacts from places other than Greece or Rome (and perhaps discussing how they came to be locked away in the British Museum) counterbalance the seemingly endless parade of sensational negatives from those parts of the world?

"If you want to get children interested in the wider world, eat foods from different cuisines, talk positively about cultures both contemporary and ancient, travel, get stuck into duolingo and get them involved, buy a globe for the home, watch travel and nature programmes, visit museums, play 'what's the capital city'/ 'name three artists from X country' type games."

Any decent parent does this as well. But if that is all they understand they are getting a western centric colonialised view of countries.

I'm interested in your thought process here, @DaddyPhD - how are my suggestions going to result in a 'western centric colonialised (sic) view of countries'?

I also want to know how you think news of war, famine, natural disasters whose effects are compounded by political corruption, and all the other sensational content deemed newsworthy that comes from parts of the world outside of what we call the west can contribute to the world view of a child of ten.

religion is an integral part of cultures both historically as well as in contemporary societies. Whether you look at this as an anthropologist, sociologist, theologist, urban planner or computer scientist, God and religion are 'real' in terms of people's lived experiences whether they are religious or not

Of course, @PinkInARow being a Jedi as a religion is 'real' in terms of some people's lived experiences, doesn't mean the 'The Force' is real as some believe. I linked belief in a higher being to racism to show how such a belief while it can be studied, be 'real' etc, is all bullshit. OR are you saying we can scientifically study if God is up there?

You got me on Mumbo Jumbo, I actually argued the dangers of colonised and western centric views, and it extends to language, so no argument from me on that one. Well done!

Glad I amused with references to gifted children, sort of went off topic , I was actually talking about gifted, not bright or very able children. My experience on campus is the gifted can get through academically in a very non-structured way.

I agree with a PP news are sensationalist and produced to capture attention and generate revenue, not to provide unbiased or genuinely relevant information so be wise with how you introduce your dc to news stories.

...No shit!! You gave me an amusing smile, in an eye rolling kind of way @PinkInARow on that one, so we're even now.

Anyways, most highly able children I have come across would pick numerous holes in the idea of a ‘corrupt government’ and come up with reasons why that's not really a big problem seeing that lateral thinking, open mindedness and unconventional problem solving are usually their forte.

I'm assuming you count yourself as an highly able person from the tone of your post, what are the holes in the argument that the Trump and Johnson abused their entrusted power, the definition of corruption? Besides it was said in context as a reply to my good friend, @mathanxiety dismissal of the whole continent of Africa as 'corrupt'.

It's not a question of left or right, its just a plain fact we have corruption in the West.

The Jury is out on Sunak and Biden, although the actions around Braverman and Biden's documents are 'fishy'.

Just in case you missed it in the news,

Johnson: Partygate and the prorogation of parliament

Trump: Tying aid to Ukraine for Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and the incitement to violence on Capitol Hill.

Oh dear @DaddyPhD . You liken religious belief with racism how facile.

Judging by your username you have or are working on a PhD so must be aware that academia includes theology and religion as intellectual disciplines, fields that are rigorously studied and researched. Faith is obviously a debatable and complex subject but an intelligent and educated person as you portray yourself to be would know that, at the very minimum, religion is an integral part of cultures both historically as well as in contemporary societies. Whether you look at this as an anthropologist, sociologist, theologist, urban planner or computer scientist, God and religion are 'real' in terms of people's lived experiences whether they are religious or not. Obviously this is not the place to start an epistemological debate about what real means but I'm sure you get the gist. Sadly, you are contradicting yourself by using racist language, the term mambo jumbo is insensitive and a reflective awareness of cultures and language would help formulate your views in a less insensitive way.

I am smiling at your comment
This response shows a complete absence of any critical thinking, sophistication, or nuance.
as all of this could be said about you based on your posts.

I find it amusing (in an eye rolling sort of way) that someone who is a self confessed critical thinker makes dozens of references to gifted children. I suppose you mean highly able children, who are of course a very diverse bunch as has been suggested.

The parents of a gifted child don't need to tutor them to the eyeballs to pass an 11+ for a kick off, a truly gifted child would be bored swotting constantly for 11+ anyway, goes back to the curiosity.

Mhm.. that may be true of some highly able children. Others will have the critical thinking ability to realise that the school they want to go to requires them to prepare 'to the eyeballs', they will be on board and work their socks off. A highly able child that doesn't work hard academically in a structured way because they get bored easily will run into issues sooner than later and often these particular children sadly don't fulfil their potential.

I agree with a PP news are sensationalist and produced to capture attention and generate revenue, not to provide unbiased or genuinely relevant information so be wise with how you introduce your dc to news stories.

Anyways, most highly able children I have come across would pick numerous holes in the idea of a ‘corrupt government’ and come up with reasons why that's not really a big problem seeing that lateral thinking, open mindedness and unconventional problem solving are usually their forte.

@mathanxiety

Academic work aims to uncover the truth. Critical thinking in any subject or discipline is the way in which this is done.

That's why things like believing in made up things like God or any religion, or believing two sets of humans with different skin colour means they have different characteristics, its complete mumbo jumbo that critical thinking destroys in seconds

Any intelligent American cannot exhibit critical thinking and think the Trump adminstration wasn't corrupt, just as the current UK gov, is. Yet in response to another poster who argued your world view was Western-centric and colonised ( it is , I agree with @AllOutofEverything ) your response was :

Scratching my head here.

How, exactly?

And how is watching endless scenes of war, famine, and political dysfunction in Africa or Haiti or any other non 'western' theatre achieving any other effect?

This response shows a complete absence of any critical thinking, sophistication, or nuance.

You argue me stating a child of ten should know about corruption in gov, weirdly you say this somehow contradicts the importance of critical thinking ??

Question, what do you understand by the term critical thinking?

One last thing, what's a bald statement?

DS was a bit like this. By three he was really good company, as well as just getting stuff quickly, knew his colours numbers etc before 3, times tables in yr 1, could beat us at chess before he was 10. Now top of his year at Oxbridge, I knew he was bright I didn't realise he was expectional.

@DaddyPhD

So you get to make bald statements with no evidence to back them up - for instance, children of ten (!) need to know about corruption in government - and you are arguing here for the importance of critical thinking?

Do I have that right?

Bitteplease I thought that list was quite interesting as it fits one of my children (who at times has driven me to distraction). I was really surprised by the things her teachers in reception noticed when she first started school (strong sense of social justice, making connections and links, curiosity etc) as I sort of thought all kids did it and was more concerned about her reading/writing and was a bit dismissive when they were telling me what she was doing stood out. During lockdown as a 3yo she created a deep imaginary world with rules, friends etc and I thought that was just normal pre-school imaginary play. It’s only since having my second that I realise how differently their minds work and how unusual the creativity of my eldest was from being tiny. My second is bright but in a much more typical way.

I think they do it because using the example of Space X it could favour a child with knowledge of the event over another - this might be due to family exposure, maybe a parent has given a strong opinion on it and this has stuck with the dc.

So to really get creative and thinking minds they used questions that families would rarely see come up.

..was thinking

I thinking about our experience with a non hot housed dc, ie no prep school and only doing past papers rather than tutoring and the things he liked to learn of his own accord - in his case it was seeking out maths not the news.

Great for him imo but I also know the school didn’t use questions as in the op. They were quite abstract and seemed a good way to find the type of student they are after. It’s a school with a reputation for academics and not just cramming, I think they’ve got it right.

Your question is better btw as you are not assuming knowledge of the news. But ime the questions were even more abstract than that and worked well.