Is it Important for Kids to Learn Geography?

[Infected Mushroom]

It's not necessary to know where countries are to function in society.

If you want to go to Italy, you can book a plane there and if you're not sure about the capitals, you can Google them. The plane will still fly you there.

If you thought Korea was one country, it could always be clarified later on.

You may look like a bit of a fool sometimes, but then again most people don't have the periodic table memorised either

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes. Geography is essentially the context of which history is the content. So if you don't learn geography, history doesn't make any sense.

its possible to memorise bits of history without having a really good and precise spatial sense of where stuff happened (bar the cut and paste projects that involve maps once in a while)

[Aureumterra]

Yes. Geography is essentially the context of which history is the content. So if you don't learn geography, history doesn't make any sense.

its possible to memorise bits of history without having a really good and precise spatial sense of where stuff happened (bar the cut and paste projects that involve maps once in a while)

True, but comparing it to war RPs here on NS without maps, things get confusing very fast. This is why map based RPing tends to succeed more here

[Galloism]

Yes. Geography is essentially the context of which history is the content. So if you don't learn geography, history doesn't make any sense.

its possible to memorise bits of history without having a really good and precise spatial sense of where stuff happened (bar the cut and paste projects that involve maps once in a while)

The spatial context makes the bits a lot easier to remember, because you are less "memorizing sequences of events of people you just heard of" and more "seeing how it actually played out across the map".

[Infected Mushroom]

its possible to memorise bits of history without having a really good and precise spatial sense of where stuff happened (bar the cut and paste projects that involve maps once in a while)

The spatial context makes the bits a lot easier to remember, because you are less "memorizing sequences of events of people you just heard of" and more "seeing how it actually played out across the map".

you can't make something easier to remember by first having people memorise tons of additional information

that's more things to remember right?

I'm pretty sure you can pass AP US History or AP World History without knowing where countries are located if you just understand how to analyse/discuss historical trends, write paragraphs about primary sources, and have enough world history sense to do the multiple choice

there are basic maps in the textbooks too to get you a general idea, but why memorise the countries and capitals?

[Galloism]

The spatial context makes the bits a lot easier to remember, because you are less "memorizing sequences of events of people you just heard of" and more "seeing how it actually played out across the map".

you can't make something easier to remember by first having people memorise tons of additional information

Absolutely you can. It's why it's actually faster for a lot of English speakers to learn French and then Spanish than it is to go directly from English to Spanish.

You can learn 2 additional language in less time than it takes to learn just the one.

that's more things to remember right?

In a way, but having a logical basis for things makes them easier to remember, because the overall pattern helps you remember the other seemingly disconnected bits.

I'm pretty sure you can pass AP US History or AP World History without knowing where countries are located if you just understand how to analyse/discuss historical trends, write paragraphs about primary sources, and have enough world history sense to do the multiple choice

there are basic maps in the textbooks too to get you a general idea, but why memorise the countries and capitals?

I honestly don't know that the capitals are worth memorizing, but when studying a major historical event (IE, a war), having it pointed out on a map where these battles were fought and how the armies were moving makes the whole war a hell of a lot easier to remember.

[Cekoviu]

Absolutely. Everyone should know where to place each country with a population above 50 million on a map.

[Forsher]

its possible to memorise bits of history without having a really good and precise spatial sense of where stuff happened (bar the cut and paste projects that involve maps once in a while)

The spatial context makes the bits a lot easier to remember, because you are less "memorizing sequences of events of people you just heard of" and more "seeing how it actually played out across the map".

Neither have that much to do with history and if it's how history is being taught, it's being done wrong. "memorizing sequences of events of people you just heard of" is more wrong, however.

[Infected Mushroom]

you can't make something easier to remember by first having people memorise tons of additional information

Absolutely you can. It's why it's actually faster for a lot of English speakers to learn French and then Spanish than it is to go directly from English to Spanish.

You can learn 2 additional language in less time than it takes to learn just the one.

that's more things to remember right?

In a way, but having a logical basis for things makes them easier to remember, because the overall pattern helps you remember the other seemingly disconnected bits.

I'm pretty sure you can pass AP US History or AP World History without knowing where countries are located if you just understand how to analyse/discuss historical trends, write paragraphs about primary sources, and have enough world history sense to do the multiple choice

there are basic maps in the textbooks too to get you a general idea, but why memorise the countries and capitals?

I honestly don't know that the capitals are worth memorizing, but when studying a major historical event (IE, a war), having it pointed out on a map where these battles were fought and how the armies were moving makes the whole war a hell of a lot easier to remember.

I don’t understand how it’s possible for it to be faster to learn French THEN Spanish ... vs just learning Spanish

I can’t believe this

Learning French is a difficult time consuming task and you’ve now added it

[Cekoviu]

Absolutely you can. It's why it's actually faster for a lot of English speakers to learn French and then Spanish than it is to go directly from English to Spanish.

You can learn 2 additional language in less time than it takes to learn just the one.



In a way, but having a logical basis for things makes them easier to remember, because the overall pattern helps you remember the other seemingly disconnected bits.



I honestly don't know that the capitals are worth memorizing, but when studying a major historical event (IE, a war), having it pointed out on a map where these battles were fought and how the armies were moving makes the whole war a hell of a lot easier to remember.

I don’t understand how it’s possible for it to be faster to learn French THEN Spanish ... vs just learning Spanish

I can’t believe this

Learning French is a difficult time consuming task and you’ve now added it

It's an exaggeration to say it's faster overall, but French is a useful stepping stone between English and Spanish (due to the large number of French loanwords).

[Galloism]

Absolutely you can. It's why it's actually faster for a lot of English speakers to learn French and then Spanish than it is to go directly from English to Spanish.

You can learn 2 additional language in less time than it takes to learn just the one.



In a way, but having a logical basis for things makes them easier to remember, because the overall pattern helps you remember the other seemingly disconnected bits.



I honestly don't know that the capitals are worth memorizing, but when studying a major historical event (IE, a war), having it pointed out on a map where these battles were fought and how the armies were moving makes the whole war a hell of a lot easier to remember.

I don’t understand how it’s possible for it to be faster to learn French THEN Spanish ... vs just learning Spanish

I can’t believe this

Learning French is a difficult time consuming task and you’ve now added it

It's about stepping stones.

Let me give you a couple of possibilities.

Here's a starcase that extends for about a mile, upward:



Here's cliff that is also about a mile high:



Which looks easier to you?

[Australian rePublic]

Yes

/Thread. Obvious answers are obvious

[Infected Mushroom]

I don’t understand how it’s possible for it to be faster to learn French THEN Spanish ... vs just learning Spanish

I can’t believe this

Learning French is a difficult time consuming task and you’ve now added it

It's about stepping stones.

Let me give you a couple of possibilities.

Here's a starcase that extends for about a mile, upward:



Here's cliff that is also about a mile high:



Which looks easier to you?

That’s way outside of my expertise to say

[Australian rePublic]

Not only should we teach kids geography, I would go one further. I would teach kids the fundamentals of staying safe in various environments.

For example, when you go to the beach, you should swim between the flags. Blatant common sense, right? I mean who doesn't know that? I'll tell you who, kids who live more than 1000km away from the coast, and have never seen a red and yellow flag. Why would they know that.

Further, you should never walk on ice, because you don't know how thin the ice is, and therefore, you don't know if you're at risk for falling in? Common sense right? Who doesn't know that? I'll tell you who, people who have never seen snow. WHY would they know that?

Unfortunately, people are dumb. People who have lived on the coast all their lives just assume that anyone who doesn't know the dangers of swimming between the flags is a moron. Unfortunately, people are dumb. People who have lived their whole lives near frozen lakes just assumes that anyone who doesn't know about the dangers of walking on thin ice is a moron. With tourism and migration expanding the way that we are, my proposal would be to teach kids the fundamentals of surviving in various environments. Does this mean that we should teach kids in Alice Springs the fundamentals of Northern Canadian snow safety? and vice verse (i.e. Does this mean that we should teach the kids of Northern Canada the fundamentals of desert safety?) Yes, yes it does. And we should also teach kids that what we know to be common sense might not actually be common sense

[Kowani]

It's about stepping stones.

Let me give you a couple of possibilities.

Here's a starcase that extends for about a mile, upward:



Here's cliff that is also about a mile high:



Which looks easier to you?

That’s way outside of my expertise to say

Deliberately being obtuse isn’t exactly going to help your position.

[Infected Mushroom]

That’s way outside of my expertise to say

Deliberately being obtuse isn’t exactly going to help your position.

I have no idea what he's trying to say

If he's trying to say, its faster to put a bridge and then walk... vs just walking without a bridge...

its not really the same with French + Spanish

Learning French first isn't a 2 minute endeavour, its something that can take years and years (and it also depends on your definition of having "learned" the language, you don't really learn a language until you can converse fluently in it, can read and write etc, that takes a ton of time)

Learning French and THEN Spanish is at least a X2 effort.

Unless you're under some misconception that French is easy as all hell to learn (having learned it myself, I can tell you its not easy)

[Kowani]

Deliberately being obtuse isn’t exactly going to help your position.

I have no idea what he's trying to say

If he's trying to say, its faster to put a bridge and then walk... vs just walking without a bridge...

its not really the same with French + Spanish

Learning French first isn't a 2 minute endeavour, its something that can take years and years (and it also depends on your definition of having "learned" the language, you don't really learn a language until you can converse fluently in it, can read and write etc, that takes a ton of time)

Learning French and THEN Spanish is at least a X2 effort.

Unless you're under some misconception that French is easy as all hell to learn (having learned it myself, I can tell you its not easy)

I also speak French. It was easy. But then again, I speak 4 other languages, 3 of which are Romance. This is what we mean by stepping stones. Because French and Spanish are both Romance languages, learning one makes learning the other easier. S’why I took Portuguese and French at the same time.

[Infected Mushroom]

I have no idea what he's trying to say

If he's trying to say, its faster to put a bridge and then walk... vs just walking without a bridge...

its not really the same with French + Spanish

Learning French first isn't a 2 minute endeavour, its something that can take years and years (and it also depends on your definition of having "learned" the language, you don't really learn a language until you can converse fluently in it, can read and write etc, that takes a ton of time)

Learning French and THEN Spanish is at least a X2 effort.

Unless you're under some misconception that French is easy as all hell to learn (having learned it myself, I can tell you its not easy)

I also speak French. It was easy. But then again, I speak 4 other languages, 3 of which are Romance. This is what we mean by stepping stones. Because French and Spanish are both Romance languages, learning one makes learning the other easier. S’why I took Portuguese and French at the same time.

There is no way that learning 2 languages back to back is faster than just learning the harder language first unless you take a SUPER LAX definition of "having learned the language."

Learning a language to me means conversational fluency, reading and writing fluency, and knowledge of at least thousands of words and competency in grammar

There is no way learning 2 languages back to back (even if they may have commonalities) is going to be faster than just learning the harder language exclusively

I would never say to someone, "The best way to learn how to play League of Legends is to FIRST PLAY AND MASTER AN EASIER GAME and then move on to League."

No... dude... you just practice and learn League.

[Kowani]

I also speak French. It was easy. But then again, I speak 4 other languages, 3 of which are Romance. This is what we mean by stepping stones. Because French and Spanish are both Romance languages, learning one makes learning the other easier. S’why I took Portuguese and French at the same time.

There is no way that learning 2 languages back to back is faster than just learning the harder language first unless you take a SUPER LAX definition of "having learned the language."

That’s not how it works, though. When the languages are related, learning one facilitates learning another.

Learning a language to me means conversational fluency, reading and writing fluency, and knowledge of at least thousands of words and competency in grammar

Oh, look, all things I can do.

There is no way learning 2 languages back to back (even if they may have commonalities) is going to be faster than just learning the harder language exclusively

That you refuse to believe it has no actual bearing on the facts.

I would never say to someone, "The best way to learn how to play League of Legends is to FIRST PLAY AND MASTER AN EASIER GAME and then move on to League."

No... dude... you just practice and learn League.

…Well that’s not what we’re saying either, but okay.

[New haven america]

Deliberately being obtuse isn’t exactly going to help your position.

I have no idea what he's trying to say

If he's trying to say, its faster to put a bridge and then walk... vs just walking without a bridge...

its not really the same with French + Spanish

Learning French first isn't a 2 minute endeavour, its something that can take years and years (and it also depends on your definition of having "learned" the language, you don't really learn a language until you can converse fluently in it, can read and write etc, that takes a ton of time)

Learning French and THEN Spanish is at least a X2 effort.

Unless you're under some misconception that French is easy as all hell to learn (having learned it myself, I can tell you its not easy)

>_>

<_<

You're from North America, how do you not know that they're in the same language family?

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no way that learning 2 languages back to back is faster than just learning the harder language first unless you take a SUPER LAX definition of "having learned the language."

That’s not how it works, though. When the languages are related, learning one facilitates learning another.

Learning a language to me means conversational fluency, reading and writing fluency, and knowledge of at least thousands of words and competency in grammar

Oh, look, all things I can do.

There is no way learning 2 languages back to back (even if they may have commonalities) is going to be faster than just learning the harder language exclusively

That you refuse to believe it has no actual bearing on the facts.

I would never say to someone, "The best way to learn how to play League of Legends is to FIRST PLAY AND MASTER AN EASIER GAME and then move on to League."

No... dude... you just practice and learn League.

…Well that’s not what we’re saying either, but okay.

Learning X first THEN learn Y... is faster than simply learning Y????

There's no way that is possible

Learning a PART of X first? Again, there's no point when you can just learn Y from the start

[Kowani]

That’s not how it works, though. When the languages are related, learning one facilitates learning another.
Oh, look, all things I can do.
That you refuse to believe it has no actual bearing on the facts.


…Well that’s not what we’re saying either, but okay.

Learning X first THEN learn Y... is faster than simply learning Y????

There's no way that is possible

Learning a PART of X first? Again, there's no point when you can just learn Y from the start

Let’s call English B. B has no relation to X (French) and no relation to Y (Spanish.) However, X is related to Y. Additionally, x is related to B (‘cause, y’know, Normans) It is easier to learn X and then Y then it is to try to jump straight to Y.

[New haven america]

That’s not how it works, though. When the languages are related, learning one facilitates learning another.
Oh, look, all things I can do.
That you refuse to believe it has no actual bearing on the facts.


…Well that’s not what we’re saying either, but okay.

Learning X first THEN learn Y... is faster than simply learning Y????

There's no way that is possible

Learning a PART of X first? Again, there's no point when you can just learn Y from the start

Yep, totally possible.

You know you as an English speaker could be fluent in any of the other Germanic languages with 2-5 years, right? And it just gets easier the more you learn. (Especially the Scandinavian languages, which are the easiest for English speakers to learn)

[Infected Mushroom]

Learning X first THEN learn Y... is faster than simply learning Y????

There's no way that is possible

Learning a PART of X first? Again, there's no point when you can just learn Y from the start

Yep, totally possible.

You know you as an English speaker could be fluent in any of the other Germanic languages with 2-5 years, right? And it just gets easier the more you learn. (Especially the Scandinavian languages, which are the easiest for English speakers to learn)

As a learner of multiple languages myself, I disagree

it's logically inconsistent (unless X were a part of Y in which case you're really just learning Y)

[New haven america]

Yep, totally possible.

You know you as an English speaker could be fluent in any of the other Germanic languages with 2-5 years, right? And it just gets easier the more you learn. (Especially the Scandinavian languages, which are the easiest for English speakers to learn)

As a learner of multiple languages myself, I disagree

it's logically inconsistent (unless X were a part of Y in which case you're really just learning Y)

Which ones?