> You replaced the rote recitation of faceless homework with engagement from an authority. She was not interested in the sequence of numbers, but interested in your interest. S
She was quite capable of expressing what she was not interested in. You are just refusing to take experiences that do not match your preconceptions.
There is a huge different between engagement and "being informed by an authority figure" which implies they have no choice.
> She loves you, and is reflecting your engagement back at you in hopes of getting more validation. Children do that a lot.
Read the blog post. She demanded more of things she enjoyed rather than what I wanted her to do (finishing her home work). That is not seeking validation.
> If somebody hadn't (brutally) drilled the concept of numbers into her skull, the sequences of random symbols would not mean anything to her.
No, nothing brutal needed to drill the concept. You can teach very gently and make it fun.
> Engaging with your child, who has already been partially socialized, is not proof that this socialization wasn't necessary. For that, you would have to have locked your daughter in the basement for those 7 years, and then find that she was spontaneously able to do multiplication
Strawman. I did not say socialisation was not necessary, I said it did not have to be brutal.
> I hope you understand that _brutality_ as spiritual. It's the brutality of going against nature, of putting a monkey in a suit and locking it in an office for 8 hours a day to feed itself.
Who gets locked in an office?
> but they sure as hell don't learn it from eating candy and watching Minecraft let's plays.
That would be neglect. no one things complete neglect is bad.
> I hope you understand that _brutality_ as spiritual. It's the brutality of going against nature
nature is a lot more brutal than modern life.