In a couple of weeks, we are planning on putting 
So far in her near four years on the earth,
I think that a lot of her strengths are because we have chosen a far more analogue life for her early years, reading books, drawing, simple toys and a mass of conversation about all things of interest has given her a strong foundation in various areas to the point that she is beyond her years in many respects.
It is a funny saying, "beyond their years" and many see this as a negative, that children should be children. However, what that seems to mean is that children should fit into some kind of average mold, a stereotype of a child and one that is driven by the current culture. If that culture creates an average child that doesn't fulfill their childhood potential, that is stunting growth, meaning they are actually "behind their years".
While many will disagree with me, I believe that passive consumption of entertainment content stunts childhood (at least) growth and affects skill levels that a person requires to navigate and negotiate in a human world. Perhaps they will have an advantage in a physically isolated digital world, but is that where we want our children to live? Maybe, because that would be much easier for parents to contend with as digital life comes with less scrapes and bruises, as well as the threats of life in this world - like viruses - well, real viruses.*
I think that when it comes to the differences in behavior between those who consume a lot and those who do a lot, at first glance it might not be so apparent - until you pay attention. Both groups might speak about similar things , but there tends to be one key difference - only one group is speaking from lived experience, the other on hearsay. I think this is apparent online also, where there are plenty of people who "know a lot" but take away Google and they are clueless - Googless.
Interesting online characters are often just that, characters. Meeting the same person in the walking world might bring one to discover that all of those clever words and funny memes weren't a good indicator of the personality at all, just what the person was able to copy. This goes the same for all of the big talk on this and that also - where most will never even contemplate the same in real life and would quickly back away from the "Let's step outside" scenario. Digital bravado is like beer balls on steroids.
One of the most boring trends in real-life conversation over the last few years is where people recount what they said to others online - "and then I said, well tweeted, that actually the statistics show.. then I found and linked a random article I didn't read that supported my case... and he couldn't even come back with..." Shut the fuck up.
The human brain can be very imaginative and has the tendency to confuse what it thinks with what it has experienced, sometimes to the point of delusion. Before it gets to that point where it is clinical though, people get the sense that they know something that they have read, without actually having tested their knowledge through experience. With the immersive entertainment we consume, it can make us feel like we have skills that we do not, like watching a documentary on boxing and thinking we can handle ourselves in a fight.
Delusions come in many forms and I figure that we all suffer from some level of them, as none of us see reality for what it is, there is always a personal filter applied from what we ourselves experience, believe and prefer - and we can believe and prefer some pretty strange things. While this is part of our creative force, if we get to the point that we are unable to tease apart reality from fiction, we can lead to building a personal narrative that can be quite harmful for ourselves or others.
I think that more and more, we are experiencing things through the lens of engineered delivery and without the cross-reference of direct experience, we end up having a highly skewed view of ourselves and the world, one that can make us feel justified in our behaviors, regardless of how damaging they may be. Online, it also tends to lead to people confidently giving advice that they are far from qualified to give, without the cross-reference of personal liability to reign in the overreach - and with the tendency of people to follow advice that best suits their mental framework, the chances of following nonsense is increased.
Perhaps this fantasy world of entertainment we have concocted has led us to believe we have more to offer than we actually do, as we think we possess skills we don't actually hold. Skills come through active development or are a side-effect of activity of some kind - very little skill can be developed through passive consumption. It doesn't matter how many galleries you walk through and master pieces you view - it doesn't make you an artist.
I wonder, though, how many of us are beyond our years in regards to the societal average, and how many are behind? What are the skill differences of a seven year-old that grew up on a farm and one who grew up coddled in the city? Not just the different kinds of skills, but the maturity of how they approach their daily life.
Maturity in many human ways is something that doesn't come with age, it comes through experience. It doesn't matter how many books and articles one reads on any particular subject, if a skill is required to perform a task, it has to be developed in practice. Thinking about it will only get one so far, before the doing has to be brought into the equation - most people don't even think that much these days it seems - as they think they can do what they have never done.
The reality is, no one is beyond their years, they are the age they are and hold the skills they have - the judgment of their age based on their perceived skill is just that, a judgment - a biased opinion.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
