Some speculation

If reincarnation is happening, this may give us some insights into the afterlife state and may also come with some testable predictions.

Firstly, if people are coming in and truly are retaining some level of education then we should expect some children to have either extremely early development or innate development. Some evidence for this seems to be savantism, and highly intelligent children. Another aspect that is potentially interesting and may give some insight into the afterlife state is the stages of child development per Piaget, which considers things like conservation, object permanence and theory of mind. It may be possible that children who are first time incarnators or otherwise unseasoned may transfer certain assumptions from the spiritual state to the incarnated state. Therefore, these may betray how experience really is over there. Many think of the spiritual state as being a mental state, and in the mental world things really do disappear when they aren't held in the mind. I could think of an apple now, but when I lose interest presumably that apple is gone. So then the testable part of this speculation is that children which are more spiritually developed will either grasp these things more quickly, or may actually never seemingly have to learn it in the first place. I am curious then, if anyone has seen children like this or any other general thoughts on the matter? Another question I have is, are children getting better generationally at establishing object permanence?

If reincarnation is happening, this may give us some insights into the afterlife state and may also come with some testable predictions.

Firstly, if people are coming in and truly are retaining some level of education then we should expect some children to have either extremely early development or innate development. Some evidence for this seems to be savantism, and highly intelligent children. Another aspect that is potentially interesting and may give some insight into the afterlife state is the stages of child development per Piaget, which considers things like conservation, object permanence and theory of mind. It may be possible that children who are first time incarnators or otherwise unseasoned may transfer certain assumptions from the spiritual state to the incarnated state. Therefore, these may betray how experience really is over there. Many think of the spiritual state as being a mental state, and in the mental world things really do disappear when they aren't held in the mind. I could think of an apple now, but when I lose interest presumably that apple is gone. So then the testable part of this speculation is that children which are more spiritually developed will either grasp these things more quickly, or may actually never seemingly have to learn it in the first place. I am curious then, if anyone has seen children like this or any other general thoughts on the matter? Another question I have is, are children getting better generationally at establishing object permanence?

Well, my sister has been a daycare director for 35 years now. We have talked about the children, and parents, in many conversations over the years. The only new thing is this huge hyper-sensitivity syndrome of many parents. That is likely just a symptom of a socially sick society.
As far as the children, not much has changed in this short time span.
However, one thing repeats and is clear, many children have this rotten egg sydrome from day one, and nothing you do about it changes the fact that some are just born rotten. Others are born super sweet people. Many are just somewhere between normal and slow.
The interesting point there for me is how obvious it is. Nothing made them that way. The children that show up angry really stand out.
Dealing with grandchildren, Boyscouts, and other young people, I don't see any difference to then and now. We had very smart kids when I was in school, and those who need special care. I haven't seen much that would scream; reincarnation did this.
The only difference to the present appears to be the amount of prescriptions that society is willing to dump on them. 
It might make an interesting study.
So are you proposing that we monitor those who grasp or retain things more quickly for reincarnation memories. Then compare to see if we have less incarnation memory in those who are average or slow? 
Is where you are headed to connect these dots? Or just savant level?

[Ninshub]

Firstly, if people are coming in and truly are retaining some level of education then we should expect some children to have either extremely early development or innate development.

I haven't read all the Stevenson books, and the other researchers. Does the research actually point to some retaining of a level of "education"? If so, could you point this out or elaborate it a bit more?

[Ninshub]

Well, my sister has been a daycare director for 35 years now. We have talked about the children, and parents, in many conversations over the years. The only new thing is this huge hyper-sensitivity syndrome of many parents. That is likely just a symptom of a socially sick society.
As far as the children, not much has changed in this short time span.
However, one thing repeats and is clear, many children have this rotten egg sydrome from day one, and nothing you do about it changes the fact that some are just born rotten. Others are born super sweet people. Many are just somewhere between normal and slow.

Are these observations coming from seeing children in daycare? If so, what ages does that encompass? If you're observing a 4 year old, or a 2 year old, or even a 1 year old, there's a lot of time for the "rottenness" to have been established through the parental interactions, like lack of emotional attunement (read something like this if you're not familiar with this). I'm not debating that some things are innate, like temperament, but I'd want to be extra careful and precise here.

If reincarnation is happening, this may give us some insights into the afterlife state and may also come with some testable predictions.

Firstly, if people are coming in and truly are retaining some level of education then we should expect some children to have either extremely early development or innate development. Some evidence for this seems to be savantism, and highly intelligent children. Another aspect that is potentially interesting and may give some insight into the afterlife state is the stages of child development per Piaget, which considers things like conservation, object permanence and theory of mind. It may be possible that children who are first time incarnators or otherwise unseasoned may transfer certain assumptions from the spiritual state to the incarnated state. Therefore, these may betray how experience really is over there. Many think of the spiritual state as being a mental state, and in the mental world things really do disappear when they aren't held in the mind. I could think of an apple now, but when I lose interest presumably that apple is gone. So then the testable part of this speculation is that children which are more spiritually developed will either grasp these things more quickly, or may actually never seemingly have to learn it in the first place. I am curious then, if anyone has seen children like this or any other general thoughts on the matter? Another question I have is, are children getting better generationally at establishing object permanence?

Perhaps you could check out P.M.H. Atwater's book The New Children and Near-Death Experiences (2003). I think her observations and ideas have at least some bearing on your enquiry.
P.M.H. Atwater was among the earliest researchers to investigate the near-death experience.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Children-Near...1591430208

"The New Children and Near-Death Experiences is the first book to provide--from the view of the child--an in-depth study of children who have experienced the near-death phenomenon and its aftereffects. Atwater notes that the child who returns from a near-death experience is not the same child as before, but is a “remodeled, rewired, reconfigured, refined version of the original.” Presenting data to support her contention that these children have experienced structural, chemical, and functional changes in the brain, she shows how their greater empathic abilities as well as dramatically higher intelligence are qualities that are also present in children born since 1982--enhanced abilities that cannot be tied to simple genetics. Atwater shows that understanding the near-death experiences of children can help us prepare for a quantum leap in the evolution of humanity."

As far as I can tell, unfortunately, her views and predictions on this regarding the "new children" haven't gone anywhere, as has always been the case for messianic New Age predictions of impending spiritual transformations of society, which generally appear to be well-meaning naive wishful thinking.

[Ninshub]

But that is for children who have experienced NDEs, which is a different area than children who remember past-life memories, and who, according to letseat's speculation, perhaps came into this life with advanced abilities, rather than having advanced abilities following an experience of reconnecting with something in another dimension.

But that is for children who have experienced NDEs, which is a different area than children who remember past-life memories, and who, according to letseat's speculation, perhaps came into this life with advanced abilities, rather than having advanced abilities following an experience of reconnecting with something in another dimension.

But apparently (as indicated in the bolded sentence from the summary), Atwater had noticed a general improvement in spirituality and intelligence in children born since 1982. This I think was naive wishful thinking.

Are these observations coming from seeing children in daycare? If so, what ages does that encompass? If you're observing a 4 year old, or a 2 year old, or even a 1 year old, there's a lot of time for the "rottenness" to have been established through the parental interactions, like lack of emotional attunement (read something like this if you're not familiar with this). I'm not debating that some things are innate, like temperament, but I'd want to be extra careful and precise here.

Yes, interaction in daycare. Usually diapers to school age, so all children are between less than a year to 5 or 6 years old. A few linger as part of the after school babysitter scenario.
The amazing thing is that there is very little to suggest that they were ever mistreated in any way, or disadvantaged. Many of the parents are great people, and they are just as disturbed by this rotten egg, while trying everything suggested to them.
From day one they lie, cheat, steal, take, bully, talk back, etc., and it is a theme, like a cookie cutter of the same evil.
Instead of trying to find the right path to being good, social, etc., they always try to find new and creative ways to be evil.

I haven't read all the Stevenson books, and the other researchers. Does the research actually point to some retaining of a level of "education"? If so, could you point this out or elaborate it a bit more?

Yes, a few do. 
They display musical talent that would have taken more time and focus to achieve, language skills, math skills, engineering skills.
A great example was concerning some of the Alaska cases with hunting and fishing skills that sound almost genetic, or mechanical abilities.
Where the language skill, for example, is often not the language they speak or learn, but directly related to the previous life.
This is not universal, but a very interesting part of the evidence that is very convincing to most previous skeptics.
One of the cases Stevenson mentions is sewing, where it appears that nobody needed to teach this child and they grabbed the materials and began to sew with skill.

[Ninshub]

Yes, interaction in daycare. Usually diapers to school age, so all children are between less than a year to 5 or 6 years old. A few linger as part of the after school babysitter scenario.
The amazing thing is that there is very little to suggest that they were ever mistreated in any way, or disadvantaged. Many of the parents are great people, and they are just as disturbed by this rotten egg, while trying everything suggested to them.
From day one they lie, cheat, steal, take, bully, talk back, etc., and it is a theme, like a cookie cutter of the same evil.
Instead of trying to find the right path to being good, social, etc., they always try to find new and creative ways to be evil.

I appreciate your view and input Durward. I guess I'm not completely convinced because parents can appear to be "great people" from the outside, and yes in many ways they can be, and there may no obvious mistreatment, but there can be subtle behaviours/interactions that at some point in time have created disturbance in the infant or child. For example, a mother may have a period where she was depressed or very preoccupied, and it left some sort of distress or insecurity in the child that comes out in other ways*.

I'm not saying that's necessarily and always the case, but I think it's easy to overlook this possibility. (And then you also have parents who have difficulty asserting their authority with the child, and granted yes there are children who are innately more "troublesome" than others.) In either way, evil is not a word I would use myself for young children and infants.

*Here's the still face experiment with infants. It's moving and disturbing to watch. Imagine the effects of something going on like this for a period of weeks or months.