Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About OneThoughtMayHideAnother

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Worker Bee

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was able to pre-order some TP online from Amazon to be delivered on Apr 9-10. Not sure yet if it will actually get delivered, as I've heard of orders being canceled, but, anyway, I found out about the availability from this site: They have trackers for other housold items as well. P.S. You can pre-order one brand as of right now. But availability changes very quickly.
  2. Love this thread: thank you for starting it. I'm always on the lookout for more reading material for my little bookworm. Some titles I haven't seen mentioned yet that my son has really liked: the Wild Robot (2 volumes, perfect level for someone who has just finished the Magic Tree House), Andrew Lost (18 books or so), George's Secret Key to the Universe and the sequels, the 3 Grace Lin novels (not exactly boy books, but my son adores them), Time Warp trio books by Jon Scieszka. Roald Dahl was already mentioned, but so good at this level that I would like to second the recommendation here. My son also loves all the Illustrated Stories collections from Usborne:Illustrated Stories from India, China, Around the World, Norse Myths, etc.
  3. Please hang in there. Constant nausea is so tough! I did Zofran with my first and Unisom + B6 with my second. Zofran stopped the vomitting but not the nausea, and it had unpleasant side effects. Unisom+B6 helped a lot: it didn't completely stop the vomiting for me, but reduced it to only a few times a day, and - other than the sleepiness - didn't seem to have any side effects. I actually preferred it out of the two options. Hope it helps you, too! The only food that made any difference for me was ginger. I actually hate the flavor of ginger but chewing on candied ginger did seem to make me feel a little better.
  4. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but after reading this quotation, I had to look it up. The way I understood it from the excerpt above was that Rush Limbaugh thought the mortality rate of 1% somehow wasn't 10 times more than the mortality rate of 0.1%. But after I read it the whole thing in context, it is clear to me that is not what he was saying at all: He was making a point about how the headlines choose to portray the story. In his opinion, the important thing about what Fauci had said was that the mortality rate of COVID was 1%, which is significantly lower than previous estimates of 3-4%. If that's true, obviously, then that's good news. But does it get portrayed as such? Not at all. The headline writers choose to hide the good news and write the most negative headline they could think of: "COVID19 10x more lethal than the flu!" His further rant about "lethal" is more of the same. Basically, if the real news here is "hey, this might not be as terrible as we initially thought (still terrible, but much less terrible)" why does the headline not say that? I'm personally not a COVID19 optimist. I take it very seriously and have been in prepping mode for months now. Like many here, I've had my fair share of debates with the "just the flu" crowd. My family has been following Taiwanese news on this disease from the beginning, back before the Wuhan lockdown. There was fear the fatality rate of this was going to be close to that of SARS (close to 10%). I remember the sense of dread we felt when Wuhan lockdown was announced, back before we knew anything about the fatality rate. So I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Limbaugh's outlook on COVID19. (I don't really know what his outlook even is.) But it seems like the quote above was deliberately chosen to make it seem like a) Limbaugh doesn't know basic math, b) Limbaugh doesn't understand what "lethal" means. Basically, more of the exact politicization that Limbaugh is complaining about.
  5. Not sure of this has been mentioned, but running clothes through the dryer on high for 20-30 mins will kill most viruses. I have been doing it with my family's coats, jacket, etc any time we go somewhere with a lot of people (like the supermarket or after a visit to the doctor.) Some clothes will not do well in high temperatures, but we have had no issues with ours so far.
  6. Yeah, I am skeptical, too given it is flu season. On the other hand, the cruises provide us with a look at some mild cases, which we would have likely never identified otherwise. Here is a case report of a 35 y.o. woman who had a slight cough, no fever, some runny nose. Essentially, light cold symptoms. There is another, similarly mild, case described here, too:
  7. This is a slightly different claim from the original, which was “If you want to have a child become fluent in another language, you should start them as early as possible.” I think much of the pushback you got was against that first statement. Now, let me first say that I’m teaching my 6 y.o. two foreign languages, and that – when it comes to most things – I am in the same “better early than late” camp as you. So some of the disagreement, I think, comes from a different understanding of what “fluency” means. Interesting subject, and I won’t get into it now, but suffice it so say that some people place more value on being able to “pass for a native speaker” than others, who focus mostly on the ability to communicate efficiently and/or eloquently. The two are linked of course, but they are not the same thing. A foreigner can be perfectly comfortable with grammar and idiom but still use interesting constructions in their speech that stem from their background in another language. This doesn’t mean they don’t use or understand American or British idioms as well, and it doesn’t mean they are not fluent. Now, as to the beautiful linear relationship that you’re seeing in immigrants arriving in English-speaking countries at different times in their lives, isn’t the actual environment an obvious confounder? Most of the folks who come to America as adults, and who are already proficient enough in English for their purposes, don’t continue actively studying the language. The idea of deliberate practice is relevant here. Kids, on the other hand, go to school where they are highly incentivized to learn both for social and for academic reasons. Most of my friends are immigrants, but I only know a single guy who continued any sort of deliberate practice in an effort to improve his English well into his late 20s. He took accent reduction classes, and can now pass for a native speaker in many situations. Another interesting point is that the relationship you’re seeing is sometimes cited as evidence against the idea that immersion by itself is the best way to learn a foreign language. Now, the word “immersion” means different things to different people, so we would first have to define it before we can have a meaningful discussion. I’m not going to get into it here, but if you’re interested in that point of view, look into the idea of, say, comprehensible input and how it compares to immersion. So let me go back to the original claim for a second (that children learn languages more easily than adults.) Imagine you want to learn a new language and that you are placed in a fully immersive environment for 5 years. Not only that, but you’re also assigned one or two adult tutors who follow you around for hours every day, pointing to things, repeating everything as many times as you need them to, take you to the library to help you choose books you can read and understand, etc. You have no job, and few chores to do. Your main responsibility is to learn. This is the environment your child is probably growing up in. (I know that there are cultural differences, but I will ignore them for now.) Now imagine that at the end of that 5 year period you can only speak the language with the fluency of an average 5 y.o. native speaker. Your grammar is atrocious; your expressive vocabulary is only about 2000-3000 words. Of course you can do better than that as an adult! (This thought experiment is not my idea, but I don’t remember where I first encountered it, so apologies for not being able to credit the author.) Perhaps comparing an adult to a baby is not fair. But if you and your children moved to, say, Korea, for a couple of years, and you were all put in school full time to learn Korean as well as to study other subjects in Korean, don’t you think you’d end up speaking the language more proficiently at the end of your stay? But that’s of course not what happens to real immigrant families. In the immigrant families only the children get to go to school full time and to devote most of their time to learning. Only the children are required to perform in the foreign language on an everyday basis and are graded based on their performance. The parents, on the other hand, have to work, cook, clean, and usually don’t have the energy or motivation required to study. Plainly interacting in the language at work or in stores is not deliberate effort aimed at improvement. Such practice makes permanent, but not perfect. None of this is to say that children have no advantages whatsoever when it comes to learning languages. If the final goal is to be able to pass for a native speaker, then I definitely agree with you a child is more likely to reach that goal. I think the child will learn (much) more slowly, but in the conditions you assume (immigration/full immersion) a child will be more likely to end up speaking the target language like a native. (BTW, if you haven’t read Diana Deutsch’s work on perfect pitch and tonal languages, I think you’ll enjoy it: I think there are also some brain activation studies showing the differences between natively and non-natively acquired languages. That being said, if we are dealing with a motivated adult who continues to learn in a deliberate way, the adult will come close to the child’s ability, and – in the majority of cases – will also speak the heritage language much better than the kid. Speaking of heritage languages, one of my hobbies these days is learning Mandarin with my 6 y.o. This means I spend quite a bit of time on fora for Mandarin-speaking parents attempting to pass their language down to their children growing up in English-speaking countries. Turns out it’s a difficult task. Even if one or both parents speak Mandarin exclusively at home, the children usually grow up speaking Chinese with an American accent and – unless the parents put a lot of effort into ensuring their children’s literacy, the kids will often not be able to read or even understand the news. (There will be exceptions of course. I know someone who immigrated to the USA from Taiwan at the age of 7, and who became fully literate in Mandarin by learning the characters from subtitles on TV. ) But on average, without conscious effort from the parents, the children – who after all hear Mandarin at home daily for 18 years – don’t even reach C-level proficiency. And don’t even get the parents on these fora started on immersion schools: these are – with few exceptions – considered by themselves completely inadequate if the goal is for the child to speak Mandarin fluently by the time they go to college. Anyway, as I read your posts on here, I’m in the same camp 95% of the time, so the last thing I’d like you to feel here is that I’m piling on! 🙂
  8. A couple of suggestions. Use spaced repetition (Anki and/or Leitner box). Review is important, and the act of recalling cements memories. Check if there are any Comprehensible Input readers in French. If not, see if you can get a reading app that offers easy articles for beginners (maybe look into LingQ, they should have a free trial.) Check out Schaum's Outline of French Grammar, currently under $13 on Amazon. I used Schaum for Italian, Spanish and German, not French, but I imagine they are consistent. Or maybe you already have a good grammar book. Go through the relevant exercises, then pick a couple of sentences that illustrate the concept and memorize the whole sentences. Input the sentences into your spaced repetition system. You can use Google translate or similar to record an acceptable pronunciation, if needed. Work on French everyday, preferably at least 30 mins to an hour. Also, Fluenz is expensive but it is a very solid intro course. It does a great job really solidifying the basics. (Maybe you can borrow it from the library?) Good luck and have fun 🙂
  9. I could notice something happening right away. The first day I took the super strength probiotic and, later during the day, about half a tbsp of potato starch mixed in with yogurt, I could tell my gut was reacting. I think it's common. It took about a week for my IBS to improve significantly, and then there was slow improvement for another 2 weeks or so. I stopped the probiotic after 3 weeks. I don't remember exactly when I tried a gluten-containing food, but I was able to tolerate gluten from that point on. It was unbelievable. I didn't supplement with RS for a very long time, but simply re-introduced some regular RS-containing foods into my diet (cooked and cooled potatoes/rice, etc). I think in my case it was mostly the probiotic that made the difference, but the RS is important in maintenance.
  10. Oh gosh, I am so sorry you have to deal with all this. I will make some perhaps a little out there suggestions for further research, on the slim chance they might help, but please feel free to ignore them, as I am no expert, and I would never presume it's my place to give out dietary advice. I used to be on low carb paleo and then keto diets for IBS and gluten sensitivity, but I no longer think they are optimal for me, and can now eat a more standard diet. My thinking changed when I started reading about gut bacteria and the role of resistant starch (RS). I took a very high dose probiotic (Elixa) and went on a higher RS diet. After about a month, my gluten sensitivity and most of my IBS symptoms were gone. This was life-changing. Now, I also know that, anecdotally, people have used high RS diets (or simply supplemented with potato starch) to tame type II diabetes. Studies are limited, but here is a meta-analysis: I think it might be something worth looking into. RS is severely lacking in many low carb diets, but it is essential for maintaining healthy gut flora. Now, RS itself might not be enough to repopulate the good bacteria, so it might be worth it to consider a powerful probiotic or other interventions. Additionally, there is this pretty interesting model of appetite regulation proposed by Seth Roberts in his book "The Shangrila Diet". It is based mostly on mouse studies and self-experimentation, and I don't really think you need it, as you are already able to keep your food intake low, but if appetite regulation is an issue, I think SR's model/method is something to consider. Plus, it's intellectually fascinating. Anyway, again, please feel free to ignore the above and best wishes!
  11. Coming back to this thread, because doing a survey of science is something that's always on the back of my mind. Not in the immediate plans for us, but probably at some point a little bit further down the road. So, anyway, since my last post I came across a resource that I'd thought I should put out there. I consider it too expensive for what it is, but if you have access to it via your library, I think it's worth checking out. And definitely don't buy the Physical Science set at full price, as it would be much cheaper to buy the books individually on Amazon, especially if you go for the paperbacks. Anyway, here are the links. Building Blocks of Physical Science by Joseph Midthun: I got some of them used on eBay, and I like them. Will probably try to get the rest of the books from this set at some point. My son was immediately drawn to them, and they are a pretty good introduction to a variety of topics. Not quite as low-level and thorough as I'd like, but definitely solid. We read Magnetism and Sound so far. Maybe PM me if you'd like to see what they look like inside and have trouble finding samples online. The same author has also written a bunch of Building Blocks of Life Science books: and, but we haven't tried those yet. Another thing that I've started doing is re-writing some of Feynman's "Easy Pieces". They are indeed easy conceptually, but my son finds the language a bit too hard at this point. Might work for a slightly older or more advanced child, though. Not quite the survey you'd like, but just so wonderful, and surprisingly accessible. Also, not sure if your son has read George's Secret Key to the Universe series, but we just discovered them, and my son has devoured them. A beautiful intro to many astronomy concepts.
  12. This is something I know I need to do better. I realize you mention it's hard to describe, but if you had a moment at some point to elaborate on what you do in order to plant those seeds for a positive attitude, and, in general, what you think are some of the best methods of encouraging the development of intrinsic motivation, I would be very grateful. And I think many other homeschooling parents reading this thread might benefit from your insight, too.
  13. If rote learning by definition eschews comprehension then I don't think we do much of it at all. Sure, there are math facts, but even those we drilled only after my son has learned multiple ways of calculating things quickly in his head and acquiring a great number sense. (Also, our drill involves his favorite game in the world so he actually asks to do it himself everyday.) So, for example, I don't really care if he memorizes 8+6=14 or if he immediately sees this in his head as 8+2+4=10+4=14. In fact, I almost prefer him to use the second option because his ability to do these things quickly means he has a better feel for quantities. Similarly, I don't care if he has memorized 7x5=35 or if he just quickly sees it as half of 7x10 because he's previously internalized that there are 2 5s in a 10. As to foreign language, we acquire vocabulary through reading and listening. It's always in meaningful context. I am quite influenced by the comprehensible input method of language acquisition. I find memorizing arbitrary word lists ineffective. Then, only when we have heard and seen a word enough times in context to have a good idea of what it really means at least some of the time (and this usually goes beyond a simple translation) we input it into some sort of a review system. And even that is transitional. The end goal is to do most of the spaced repetition through copious reading, but at this point there just isn't enough interesting material that only uses the limited vocabulary my son has, and he is simply not able to do enough reading volume for it to be sufficient review in itself. So we rely heavily on flashcards as a crutch. Once we get to a point where he can read children's literature for fun, we won't need them because encountering a word in context while reading is the best review possible. Even memorizing Chinese characters specifically is best done with emphasis on building connections and noticing phonetic and semantic patterns. I realize that there is this idea out there that focusing on retention means one doesn't focus on ideas. But, in line with what you say, successful long term retention of complex subjects requires engaging with ideas at a deep level. I do think learning some facts at some point enhances overall knowledge acquisition, and that's where art of memory comes in, to make the memorization part playful, quick and painless. But all of this should be done in addition to high level work involving thorough comprehension of material and analysis and synthesis of information, not instead of it. How would one rote-learn high school level physics anyway? How could one rote learn math? Not possible. Comprehension comes first. Problem solving comes first. Playing with the material comes first. But many people do all that and still don't remember much of what they learned a year later. And that's where building a retention system comes in. That doesn't mean drilling and killing at all, but - instead - engaging with the same ideas again and again before they are forgotten.
  14. Yes, this one is amazing. Not sure how good this forum must have been in the past for people to think it's not that great these days. Threads like this are already providing me with a feeling of community that's hard to find locally. My oldest child is only 6, so take everything I say with a grain of salt, but I never took the fact that most people don't remember anything from high school to mean there's something wrong with spending all that time and effort on learning, say, biology, chemistry, physics or a foreign language. A while back I had a conversation with a fellow homeschooling mom about her educational philosophy. She bemoaned how much time she had wasted in high school (wow, so had I!) because she had done all this hard work and retained almost nothing. (Yes! That's one of the reasons I'm homeschooling, too! Who wants their children to waste all this time?) But then she went on to say this meant she wouldn't have her children go through all of these subjects. Now, wait a second! Why??? Completely didn't see that one coming, because isn't that quite a leap? I don't know about everyone else, but one of the primary reasons I didn't learn (or retain) much from school was that school placed zero emphasis on long-term retention. What if we designed our courses of study in a way that actually stresses remembering things? Instead of ditching the content, why not bring back the art of memory and rely more on various forms of spaced repetition? Whenever I think about what my son should be learning, retention is one of the primary concerns I have. If he spends all this time studying X, how do I make sure he doesn't forget it all? I keep going back to this question and I spend a considerable amount of effort building memory and retention systems. (It goes without saying that deep understanding is another primary concern, but I will say it anyway, because - for whatever reason - remembering and understanding are often treated as if they were mutually exclusive.) This doesn't mean I don't find some value in doing things for exposure only. We are reading through Story of the World for fun, and it's been a fantastic experience, but I'm not treating it as studying history yet. This one is for pure enjoyment and, yeah, exposure. We will go back and do grammar stage history properly at some point, though, and when that time comes, I will do my best to ensure retention. Take the way we study Mandarin. To a large extent it's based on spaced repetition, and it's hard work. My goal is for my son to be reading (and comprehending) the language on grade level so that further down the road, perhaps a year or two from now, we can switch to consumption of age-appropriate books and other media as our primary way of review. But review will always be necessary. When I consider how many languages I'd like for my children to learn, the review aspect is of primary importance. In order to maintain, they will need to be immersed in each one of their languages for half and hour to an hour a day through reading or other media. There will also have to be a regular way of interaction with speakers of the language, even if only through Skype. And I see no reason we shouldn't have some sort of a spaced repetition system in place for most of what we study. You can even review the application of concepts through spaced repetition by randomizing the particulars of the questions. And, anyway, as is the case with foreign languages, hopefully, much of it will be covered by what Jean in Newcastle describes here: And perhaps working on a lot of projects would help solve much of the retention puzzle, too. I just don't see it as something one needs to do instead of focusing on content. But then again, there's a reason I'm in favor of accelerating kids as much as possible. I am aware that achieving all that I would like us to achieve will take a lot of time and effort. There are so many beautiful things I want to make sure they learn, and I will only have my children at home till they are 18! Love this.
  15. I didn't mean to come off as flippant, so now that it's not 3 AM my time anymore, I thought I'd elaborate a bit on why I don't see that much of a contradiction in both approaches that folks have been arguing for. This is a (more eloquent version of a) rant I often subject my poor husband to. I'm definitely in the camp of instilling content, and a lot of it, in my kids. And I also see Farrar's perspective as deeply rooted in the education debate, educational approach and their far-reaching consequences in the US. Now, I also don't think that the particular people who focus on skills in this thread would disagree that there should be a shared basic content for all, particularly in the realm of science, but also including a broad understanding of history (everyone needs to know what WW2 or the Roman Empire were), or a solid grounding in political geography. The way I read it, I see @lewelma or @square_25 focusing on skills in their homeschools because they take the transmission of the basics of content to their children for granted. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, though!) They have and will allow their children's interest to decide what the deep dives are going to be, but if Farrar came up with a set of the most important content requirements for the US schools (a very difficult, but, I agree, also a very important task) I am certain that lewelma's and square_25's kids will have covered and exceeded those (even though lewelma is not even based in the US.) Then, in addition to, and not instead of, those content guidelines, they would have facilitated deep dives in many areas. To an extent, I think the varying perspectives that might feel like disagreement here come from some folks interpreting OP's question as what are the musts for them and their children, whereas Farrar placed more focus on policy and what the musts should be for all kids. A slightly different point when it comes to, say, math is this. I work with my particular child, and I will teach them as much math as they can master before they turn 18. The limiting factors will be time and innate ability. I think it's difficult to decide on national scale whether we should have everyone take calculus in high school. But it's not as difficult in a homeschool. I think I should teach my children as much math as they can absorb, reasonably. So, I'm not advocating for doing hours and hours a day for everyone, but I think it should be several hours a week, for years, till the children leave home. This will lead to some children mastering calculus, analysis, discrete math, and more, while other children will barely get a grasp of algebra. Everyone works within their own limitations, though. Same goes for science. I think everyone here will agree their children should spend many hours over many years studying biology, chemistry and physics. Everyone will want the basics covered and everyone will want to go as deep as time and ability allow. Emphasis will be different, but we will all do as much as we can given our unique constraints. This approach, a natural one, I think, for academically ambitious homeschoolers, which you all are, will lead to all of your children having covered a lot of content. (It is of no help in answering policy questions, though.)
  • Create New...