MM> VH> It makes it very difficult to see the unborn child as less human than
MM> VH> ourselves, that's for sure!

MM>There's a major problem right there - human anthropomorphism
MM>enables anything human-like `to be seen' as possessing adult human
MM>characteristics.

In this case, they DO possess human characteristics -- and they
demonstrate them.

MM>And that despite the clear evidence that neonates have to learn to
MM>become social humans - backed up by all the accounts of feral
MM>humans who have learned in their first decade to become something
MM>else.

They must be socialized, yes -- just as they must learn to talk, walk,
read, and so on.  But it's becoming more clear that in the womb they
engage in activities to prepare them for life after birth -- in other
words, they embark on the journey long before they were thought to
exhibit such behavior.

MM> MM>So if they've got reading and writing round the wrong way,
MM> MM>how good are the prevailing hypotheses on how we read ?

MM> VH> I suggest our great problem is simple:  For thousands of years we
MM> VH> taught children to read successfully.  But the means we used,
MM> VH> memorization, drill, discipline, and so on, were "old
fashioned."  Now
MM> VH> we have new methods and they are wonderful -- except that they don't
MM> VH> work.

MM>I'd claim that the new methods are as successful as the old - and
MM>that the 10-20% who don't respond are now being remediated better
MM>than they used to be.

MM>Overall, your suggestion is spot on, regardless.

I live in a state where we have whole counties with adult illiteracy
rates over 50%.  Remediation, if it is working somewhere is not working
there.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5