We Don't Watch TV!
Silvia Gamper
> I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
> in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
> your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
I agree 100%. I myself also grew up without a TV (didn't even have one in the
house). My dad thought it was a waste of time, and that most of it was stupid.
Sometimes I felt left out because all the other kids talked about something
they saw last night, and sometimes nobody wanted to play because there was
something "good" on TV. But all in all, I don't think I missed anything. I had
more time to read and do creative things.
It's not that I don't enjoy going to the cinema and see a movie, but that's
different. It's on a big screen, and it's special, because I go out.
My kids will grow up without one! Yes, and I think this is the right decision.
So many programmes are violent, and young children don't understand what's
going on anyway. And they don't need it, they are much happier playing.
A TV is also very comfortable as babysitter, you can get rid of your kids by
turning on the "monkey box". How about spending time with them, or letting them
"help" you?
Besides I refuse to be infiltrated by ONE source. What you watch a lot, you
end up believing! TV provides you with a picture of the world, which I am not
sure if I want to adopt it.
The real world is so much more interesting anyway.
Silvia Gamper on Serge Droz's account o _____ _.
reply to: dr...@phys.ualberta.ca (Silvia) o /o __ \_/ |
Don't forget this: ^^^^^^^^, oC /// _ <
or I won't get your answer. `-----' `-'
Scott Gant
> in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
> your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
I also used to think that Barney was "stupid". Actually, I just thought
it was mindless. Anyway, now that I have watched it a little, I don't
think it will turn your child into a "slug". My son doesn't watch TV
(he's only 1), but when he sees Barney, he jumps with joy. He just thinks
that big purple thing on the screen is the neatest thing. Hardly what I
would call a "slug". Kevin and I will dance with Barney--usually not for
long, because Kevin loses interest when Barney isn't on screen.
I certainly don't advocate sitting your child down in front of the TV so
that you can do something other then entertain your child, but I think
Barney and other TV programs definately have a place. Not that your child
will be deprived if he doesn't get to see Barney, but my child isn't
becoming a "slug" because he is.
Kristen (mama to Kevin 9/17/93)
Dzw123
Bishop) writes:
I agree with you on one point, "Barney" is stupid! But, since you
don't watch tv would you be willing to sell the one you have?
We have 4 at the present. One in every bedroom and one in the
family room.
sure...lemme know when your kids graduate from Harvard.
Mike Bishop
dzw...@aol.com (Dzw123) writes:
>Hiya --
>Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
>allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. I worked at
>PBS for several years and felt that most tv programs were insipid and tv
>in general only teaches children to be passive and let information come to
>them. It lets them sit there dully while things are blasted at them,
>teaching them that all conflicts can be resolved in 60 minutes or less
>(usually violently) and that being a slug is a good thing. We are proud
>of our decision, and our eldest has seen some tv and has gotten very
>worked up about it when she did, and we did the right thing.
>
>I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
>in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
>your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
don't watch tv would you be willing to sell the one you have?
We have 4 at the present. One in every bedroom and one in the
family room.
Jane Medefesser
BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP
(Pardon me - my bullshit detector just went off )
---
Jane Medefesser - SQA Engineer
SMCC - Sun Printer Products
Sun Microsystems
2550 Garcia Avenue MS MTV02-106
Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
(408) 336-4844
(408) 969-6649 fax
jane.me...@Eng.Sun.Com
Jane Medefesser
> Hiya --
> Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
> allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. I worked at
> PBS for several years and felt that most tv programs were insipid and tv
> in general only teaches children to be passive and let information come to
> them. It lets them sit there dully while things are blasted at them,
> teaching them that all conflicts can be resolved in 60 minutes or less
> (usually violently) and that being a slug is a good thing. We are proud
> of our decision, and our eldest has seen some tv and has gotten very
> worked up about it when she did, and we did the right thing.
>
> I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
> in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
> your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
Gosh, Dweezil (That's how I pronounce "Dzw123") - I grew up watching TV
and *I* turned out OK - my valedectorian Stanford graduate neighbor did
too. WE have a TV (which is sometimes tuned to "Ren & Stimpy") and MY
daughters are getting all A's and are enrolled in GATE and county Lyceum.
My turn: We don't net-surf at OUR house. We save it for the office. We've
found that it's just too easy to ignore the children's needs when we're
wrapped up in a flame fest. Now that we quit home net-surfing our home is
a happier place: The children's grades went up, that cat's came back home,
OH - and we found another kid hiding under my son's bed! Seem's we have 4
kids and we only thought we had 3!! Golly gee, I am SO happy we stopped
net-surfing, YOU should TOO!!!
:-) :-) <==flame retardent
sue marquette poremba
>
>Hiya --
>Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
>allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. I worked at
>PBS for several years and felt that most tv programs were insipid and tv
>in general only teaches children to be passive and let information come to
>them. It lets them sit there dully while things are blasted at them,
>teaching them that all conflicts can be resolved in 60 minutes or less
>(usually violently) and that being a slug is a good thing. We are proud
>of our decision, and our eldest has seen some tv and has gotten very
>worked up about it when she did, and we did the right thing.
>
>I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
>in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
>your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
Well, Barney is kind of stupid, but my kids are older and have thankfully grown
out of the Barney stage.
But does tv make my kids slugs? Hardly. TV has provided opportunities for my
kids to ask intelligent questions on politics, AIDS, war, space flight, ecology
and all sorts of things. Sure, they like to watch Rugrats and other kids shows
(but hey, I love to watch the Flintstones :), but tv has provided us with a way
to discuss what is going on in the world. I realize that print media and radio
can bring about discussion too, but that has to depend on the age of the child.
It is hard to talk about what you read if you can't read. TV, in our house, is
the introduction into subjects, whether that discussion is the effectiveness of
mudslinging in the local campaigns or did Carter really fumble the ball in the
Penn State-Michigan game.
Sue Poremba (mom to Kristi and Dylan, aka Teddy)
Carol Fischer
[after saying that the family doesn't watch TV]
>I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
>in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
>your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
I think that some books are trash, so I've decided not to allow books in the
house.
I once saw a play that was really stupid, so my children will never go to
the theatre.
I heard a song that was stupid, so I won't allow a radio in the house.
:-) :-) :-)
Forgive me, but after reading a post like the original one at least every
few months for the last 5 years, I am still unconvinced of the logic that
says that because not all television is high quality, it is better to go
without television at all. If television is harming *your* kids in some
way, then it certainly makes sense to ban it in your household. However,
that dioesn't mean that there aren't some great family shows & some
wonderful opportunities for learning through television.
My kids don't watch much TV, but that's because we have lots of things for
them to do in the house -- books, music, games, etc. -- and lots of things
for them to do outside. But TV has its place in my household & my kids are
not slugs because of it.
Carol Fischer
Mom to Katie (2/12/89) & Mark (8/3/92)
Dzw123
Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. I worked at
PBS for several years and felt that most tv programs were insipid and tv
in general only teaches children to be passive and let information come to
them. It lets them sit there dully while things are blasted at them,
teaching them that all conflicts can be resolved in 60 minutes or less
(usually violently) and that being a slug is a good thing. We are proud
of our decision, and our eldest has seen some tv and has gotten very
worked up about it when she did, and we did the right thing.
I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
SNO...@mvs.sas.com
Since you're not using the tv, do you want to sell it? My son
needs one in his bedroom.
Thanks,
Jeff B.
========================================================================
= Jeff Bailey =
= SAS Institute Inc. =
= Cary, NC =
= =
= + "...Mmmmmmm, sacralicious." - Homer Simpson + =
========================================================================
In article <37n9er$c...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
Donna Cornwell
> I agree with you on one point, "Barney" is stupid! But, since you
> don't watch tv would you be willing to sell the one you have?
> We have 4 at the present. One in every bedroom and one in the
> family room.
So whatever happened to Judy Leedom Tyrer, she used to shine in this
particular discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna
The SUBurban Nightmare
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Carroll
>Hiya --
>Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
>allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch.
>I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
>in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
>your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
We made the same decision and think it is absolutely the right one for us.
We didn't have a tv at all for the first 7 or so years of kidhood. (Kids
are now 7 and 9). The only reason we ended up with one is that so many
friends offered us their old/extras (thinking we couldn't afford it??)
we finally relented. But by that time the die was cast and the kids are
not really interested so it is never on.
One thing I did notice, which was frightening to me: a couple of times
we had we we called "blotto weekends"--we would rent a VCR and watch
movies for the whole day, a great winter escape. What I noticed was that
after one or two kid movies my children would turn glassy-eyed and be
completely unable to think of something to do. Their ordinary behavior
includes endless activity--reading, coloring, putting on "shows, etc. It
was amazing to me to see what a couple of hours of passive watching could
do to their creativity and ingenuity.
Enough. Thanks for watching and now a word from one of our sponsors.....
Donna Carroll
Bruce Giese
>in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
>your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
The only negative I can think of is that your kids will be unaware
of a major part of society, be that good or bad. To take an extreme
example, there are a lot of words and phrases in English which I don't
like, but I won't keep my son away from it because it's such a major
part of society. This comparison may sound silly, but there are lots
of people who view English as a threat to their own culture, because
the structure of the language itself implies a certain way of thinking.
Right now, the main difference between TV and language is that it
currently isn't very interactive, and most of it is input rather than
output. Perhaps this will change in the future?
I also believe a lot of the views of TV are based on stereotypes. Yes,
the majority of TV shows are lousy, but I don't watch the majority of
TV shows. It's all in how you use the medium.
TV is "bad". Educational multimedia computer systems are "good".
Video games are "bad". Interactive computer applications are "good".
Barney is "stupid". Sappy local puppet shows are "good".
Bruce Giese
Marc's Dad
Laurel Halbany
: The only negative I can think of is that your kids will be unaware
: of a major part of society, be that good or bad. To take an extreme
: example, there are a lot of words and phrases in English which I don't
: like, but I won't keep my son away from it because it's such a major
: part of society. This comparison may sound silly, but there are lots
: of people who view English as a threat to their own culture, because
: the structure of the language itself implies a certain way of thinking.
Well, not necessarily; the kids may watch TV at friends' houses and
such, but not in the home. I understand the cultural aspect of
TV--I've often been in those conversations where people ask
'did you see X show on last night?' and of course I didn't.
It would seem to me to be a good idea to occasionally organize
TV "parties" for special occasions. For example, if Sesame Street
is having a big special program, a bunch of parents could get the
kids together to watch it.
: Right now, the main difference between TV and language is that it
: currently isn't very interactive, and most of it is input rather than
: output. Perhaps this will change in the future?
I doubt it. People were being excited about interactive TV (remember
Qube?) back when I was a kid, and it didn't happen.
: I also believe a lot of the views of TV are based on stereotypes. Yes,
: the majority of TV shows are lousy, but I don't watch the majority of
: TV shows. It's all in how you use the medium.
That's not entirely true. There is plenty of evidence that TV watching
affects things like metabolic rate. No, TV is not inherently EVIL,
but I don't think it's neutral, either.
Gail Hatch (On the cutting edge of obsolescence)
I'm so glad to see this posted here. We have a TV in the house, we watch the news and sometimes a PBS special show (like the Baseball series). We also enjoyed some of the Olympics. For fours years we've chossen not to get cable. My husband was a self admitted TV spud. Without revolving your life around the tube it's amazing how many things there are out there to do. The best benefit is talking to your spouse, or other family members. There is no rush in our house to get up from the dinner table, conversation often flows past 9:00.
Our first child is due in January and I have explained to many that I do not intend to change out viewing habits. I have been shot down by 9 out of 10 people I tell this to: "oh, that will change" "You'll be glad to have the TV to give you a break". I disagree, and strongly suspect these are the same people who thing I'm going to start serving TV dinners.
A best friend of mine claims to limit her youngsters TV viewing, yet each time we visit, they are camped out with that glazed over look in a coma in front of the TV, be it a show or a video. I will no let my child join those ranks.
Yes, there are informative useful programs on. TV is a form of entertainment, but in our house is will not be the primary source, nor the secondary source...
Gail
Ben Moreland
: In article <37n9er$c...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> dzw...@aol.com (Dzw123) writes:
: >Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
: >allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. I worked at
: >PBS for several years and felt that most tv programs were insipid and tv
: >in general only teaches children to be passive and let information come to
: >them. It lets them sit there dully while things are blasted at them,
: >teaching them that all conflicts can be resolved in 60 minutes or less
: >(usually violently) and that being a slug is a good thing. We are proud
: >of our decision, and our eldest has seen some tv and has gotten very
: >worked up about it when she did, and we did the right thing.
: >I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
: >in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
: >your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
: You are not the only ones. We have only had our TV on for 3 hours since 13
: months ago. (I recorded a PBS special on Vladmir Horowitz, the pianist, and
: another PBS special - a young artist's music competetion.) For several years
: before that the only other thing we watched was local and national news.
: TV is a mind stealer.
: Signature follows:
: "Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN cometh
: unto the Father, BUT BY ME. " John 14:6
--
I would have to disagree (with the extreme position). Personally,
I believe the key to life is moderation, whether it be diet, excersice
or TV. There are benefits to TV. The obvious one is enjoyment. It
can also be educational and helpful. In reference to Barney, when
Limo did like to watch it, I think it was very good. He wanted to
brush his teeth more (while trying to sing the song that goes with
it). As another poster mentioned a while back, cleaning up because
easier with the song. "Clean up, Clean up. Everyone, everywhere.
Clean up, Clean up. Everyone do your share." Limo likes to watch
Lois and Clark (Superman) and Star Trek. I would guess he watches
no more than 1 hour per day on average. He is far from passive and
has an *incredible* imagination. I do not see TV harming him in any way.
I do think you do have to watch out for the other extreme, a child
that sits in front of a TV for hours each day.
But like many of the threads I have seen, anything taken to the
extreme probably isn't the best solution. Moderation and common
sense are my guidelines.
YMMV.
ben father to Limo (3.75 yo)
p. 115
Scott Gant
> such, but not in the home. I understand the cultural aspect of
> TV--I've often been in those conversations where people ask
> 'did you see X show on last night?' and of course I didn't.
My only comment to this is that if your child is only seeing TV at a
friends house,they are only getting their friends and their friends
family's opinion and not yours. I think family dialogue during TV
watching is important. It is one way to let your kids know what you think
about a certain subject.
Tony McGregor
> The only negative I can think of is that your kids will be unaware
>of a major part of society, be that good or bad. To take an extreme
>example, there are a lot of words and phrases in English which I don't
>like, but I won't keep my son away from it because it's such a major
>part of society.
I wish it were true! We haven't had a TV since out eldest was a baby.
It dosn't stop the TV culture rubbing off on them though. They get it
all through their friends.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McGregor ( Tony.M...@rdt.monash.edu.au )
Department of Robotics and Digital Technology,
Monash University, Clayton Campus, Vic 3168, Australia.
Phone: +61 3 9053296 Fax: +61 3 9053574
www: http://www.rdt.monash.edu.au/~bandor/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Hanson - N5HPO
You are not the only ones. We have only had our TV on for 3 hours since 13
months ago. (I recorded a PBS special on Vladmir Horowitz, the pianist, and
another PBS special - a young artist's music competetion.) For several years
before that the only other thing we watched was local and national news.
TV is a mind stealer.
Signature follows:
"Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life: NO MAN cometh
unto the Father, BUT BY ME. " John 14:6
David L. Hanson Internet --> dlha...@amoco.com
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Laurel Halbany
: I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
: in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
: your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
Nope! My partner and I don't own a television (and haven't for some
years, as I recall); we aren't planning on getting one after we're
parents.
Note that I am *not* condemning parents who own or watch TVs!
Karl Brodowsky
| Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
| allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. [...]
| I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only
| ones in the world who think that not only "`Barney"' is stupid, but
| so is having your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
No, we don't have a TV either. We never had one to unplug. :-)
|| b...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de |ä| o ||
|| Karl Brodowsky |ö| ___ /\ ||
|| |ü| |oo \ _`\ `_ ||
|| |ß| -(*)----(*)/ (*) ||
Lefty Redux
>
>Gosh, Dweezil (That's how I pronounce "Dzw123") - I grew up watching TV
>and *I* turned out OK - my valedectorian Stanford graduate neighbor did
>too. WE have a TV (which is sometimes tuned to "Ren & Stimpy") and MY
>daughters are getting all A's and are enrolled in GATE and county Lyceum.
Hmm. I had a grandfather who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day
from the time he was eleven until the time he was eighty-nine. He cut
back to one pack a day after that.
What intelligence should we derive from this?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Laurel Halbany
> My only comment to this is that if your child is only seeing TV at a
> friends house,they are only getting their friends and their friends
> family's opinion and not yours. I think family dialogue during TV
> watching is important. It is one way to let your kids know what you think
> about a certain subject.
> Kristen (mama to Kevin 9/17/93)
I agree. On the other hand, you can't always be right there when the
kids are watching TV. Forbidding them to watch certain programs is,
of course, useless.
Paddy Lock
b...@aixcomp2.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Karl Brodowsky) wrote:
> dzw...@aol.com (Dzw123) schrieb:
>
> | Since our kids were born, my husband and Idecided to unplug the tv and not
> | allow the kids (ages two and half and nine months) to watch. [...]
>
> | I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only
> | ones in the world who think that not only "`Barney"' is stupid, but
> | so is having your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
>
We think Barney is stupid too - so we don't watch it. But we ALL love
Sesame Street, the Muppet Show and the new show "The Magic School Bus". We
mostly just use the TV to watch the occasional video or sing-a-long as a
treat when the kids are up, but when they're in bed, we can watch more
adult stuff (if we can stay awake). The real problem is that the TV
dominates the room it is in - EVEN IF ITS OFF! Look at your furniture
arrangement and see if I'm right.
--
Paddy Lock
Ketil Albertsen
: I am wondering -- does anyone else feel this way or are we the only ones
: in the world who think that not only "Barney" is stupid, but so is having
: your kid become a slug in front of the tube?
Some times people won't believe me when I mention that for the last half
of TVs entire life time (here in Norway), I have been living without a
TV set in my home - I moved out from my parent's house in 1978, and we've
had official TV broadcasts since 1960. But even today, my dad keeps asking
me "Did you watch that..." - at which point I interrupt him: "No, we don't
have a TV set!" and he says "Oh, I forgot". This exact dialoge has taken
place, it must be a couple hundred times over the years, and it still does!
I wouldn't mind having a TV set, though, *provided* that it is at least a
29" one so that I can really enjoy good movies, that it comes with a high
quality VCR and a two week course learning to program it so that I won't
be a slave of the broadcast schedule, a similarly high quality video camera
so that I can save at least a tiny little part of Ingunn (8yo) for the
future, and then, last but not the least, that it comes with a couple extra
hours a day to give me time to watch it!
I simply cannot afford the hours it takes to watch the TV! I sure know that
I miss out a significant element of our current culture by doing other
activities, but then again, those kids/adults spending hours in front of the
TV set miss out a lot of *our* sources of culture: We read books (Norway
maintains a very high standard on children's books), we play the violin and
sing in a chorus, we create our woodcraft collections, we write fairy tales
(is there anyone out there with sufficient familiarity with Norwegian that
they can translate our most recent work to English? It is a true fairy tale
story, so I am looking for someone who enjoy Tolkien and that sort), and
we do listen to radio (a common saying here is that "the images are so much
better with the radio"...)
I sometimes get the impression that an hour of TV watching does lead to
discussions and talks between parents and kids, lasting for ten minutes.
Sure this is better than never having any talk at all, but in my eyes, that
is really inefficient use of time. A talk of an hour and ten minutes usually
will bring up much more important questions. So it boils down to: We don't
have the time to watch TV.
To us, the increasing number of TV channels have been a blessing! In my own
childhood, there was a single channel, and if you were not informed about
last night's episode of The Ashton Family around the Thursday luch table,
then you were *really* a social outcast. Similar with The Detective Hour on
Friday night, the wild west movie every Saturday etc.etc. Nowadays, when most
households are connected to a CATV system offering at least 6-8 channels, it
has become "legitimate" not having watched the same program last night as
the guy on the bus trying to get a conversation going. That also opens for
not having watched any program at all...
I *was* a little worried that Ingunn would grow up without knowing about the
TV culture at all. I was also worried that she might be unaware of current
trends in childrens' music, popular and rock music - at home we play a lot
of music, but that is jazz, folk, classical... very little of what her
classmates listen to. But it turns out that she picks up a whole lot of it
anyway: She goes to friends' homes, she receive records as birthday presents,
she listen to radio programs for kids/youth. No, she is not "fluent" in the
different styles or familiar with all the artists/groups, but she knows what
it is all about (and generally prefer our own music selection). It looks as
if it is going the same way with TV: She knows what it is all about, but
prefers to have daddy read a good book to her, or take an hour long walk
with the dog chatting with daddy about anything that pops into her mind.
I might get myself a TV set "involuntarily": I really would like to have a
video camera - she is eight now, nine next month! A few more years, and she
will be out of the house! Help me!! ... Almost all VCR players in the market
have built-in TV tuners (otherwise they are playback-only units). So even
without the TV set (I'll play the movies on our PC screen, it's a high
quality 21" one), we *will* have TV access. Oh, well, I don't have to buy
an antenna for it :-) ...or I will have to use it in a very controlled manner!
ketil
Lorinda Brandon
Oh hell. I hate these threads. :)
Well, here's my 2 cents -
We have a TV and my 3 YO watches (my 1 YO plays in the vicinity).
We monitor what he watches and we usually watch with him,
unless we have to take a shower, make dinner, etc. TV has not
made him a slug at all - it has taught him things that he
would probably not learn for years, since he can't read yet.
Let's see - he watches "Magic School Bus" and knows what
white blood cells do. He watches "KidSongs" and knows about
a lot of exotic animals. He watches "Mister Rogers" and knows
how they make paper, what origami is. I suppose you can argue
that I could teach him these things but it wouldn't occur
to me to talk about white blood cells to a 3 YO. I'm always
amazed at his capacity to learn and the degree to which
he can absorb things.
I don't agree with using the TV as a perpetual babysitter but
I think that quality TV can do more good than harm, particularly
if it means that he has something enjoyable to do while
I cook dinner or fold laundry! :):) I do think, however, that
parents must make intelligent responsible decisions about
the shows they allow the kids to watch.
--
____________________________________
Lorinda, page 15
Mom to Ben 11/13/91 and Spencer 10/11/93
Misc.kidding since 3/93
Lorinda Brandon
I've been wondering about her lately too!! Judy, where are you?
Laura Dolson
: In article <37ug9t$a...@newsflash.mitre.org> dcor...@ccel.mitre.org (Donna Cornwell) writes:
: >
: > So whatever happened to Judy Leedom Tyrer, she used to shine in this
: > particular discussion.
: I've been wondering about her lately too!! Judy, where are you?
I believe she can be found in rec.skating and alt.support.diet.
--
Laura Dolson
dol...@crl.ucsd.edu
Jonathan Cave
>In article <37uh9r$p...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> ja...@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>Gosh, Dweezil (That's how I pronounce "Dzw123") - I grew up watching TV
>>and *I* turned out OK - my valedectorian Stanford graduate neighbor did
>>too. WE have a TV (which is sometimes tuned to "Ren & Stimpy") and MY
>>daughters are getting all A's and are enrolled in GATE and county Lyceum.
>
>Hmm. I had a grandfather who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day
>from the time he was eleven until the time he was eighty-nine. He cut
>back to one pack a day after that.
>
>What intelligence should we derive from this?
That arguing from the specific to the general ensures lots and lots of
interesting discussion with no great danger of resolution until all parties
are fully satisfied:=)
Mike Bishop
Beam me up Scotty!
Mike
Judy Tyrer
is slow today :-)
You people are missing the point. YES, we use TV as a baby sitter. We
put on a video for the kids, lock the bedroom door, and remember ONE of
the reasons why we got married. It has done WONDERS for our marriage and
I cannot recommend it highly enough :-) :-) :-) (And being less cranky
has done wonders for our kids so it pays off both ways :-)
Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
Don't flame me, I'll be at the ice rink where it will feel good to be warm
for a change :-)
--
Judy Leedom Tyrer
"Challenges make you discover things about yourself that you never
really knew. They're what make the instrument stretch - what make
you go beyond the norm." Cecily Tyson
Jonathan Cave
Judy Tyrer <ju...@izar.la.locus.com> wrote:
>Well, someone requested I post on this thread so here I am (skating list
>is slow today :-)
>
>You people are missing the point. YES, we use TV as a baby sitter. We
>put on a video for the kids, lock the bedroom door, and remember ONE of
>the reasons why we got married. It has done WONDERS for our marriage and
>I cannot recommend it highly enough :-) :-) :-) (And being less cranky
>has done wonders for our kids so it pays off both ways :-)
Is this a) sufficiently effective and b) really necessary? Since Ben
started school, privacy hasn't been a problem for us:-)
>
>Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
>overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
>real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
I see, so the diet that TV feeds kids, from the mindless conformity of B****y
and the sound-bite attention span of Sesame St to the morality plays of the
Ninja Turtles and the Power Rangers is the "real world" or some cute
simulacrum that "prepares" kids for adulthood? Perhaps you and I have been
seeing different sorts of programs, or it may just be that our notions of
reality and adult life are poles apart.
It may come as a shock to learn that TV is not real life, but it had to be
said. Perhaps you'd care to expand on your thesis a bit - if you meant
what you said, I for one am curious about the kind of shows you have in
mind. If, as I suspect, your remarks were just a flip retort, then please
don't let this discussion keep you off the ice.
Unbelieveable.
>Don't flame me, I'll be at the ice rink where it will feel good to be warm
>for a change :-)
If I thought you really meant what you wrote, I'd probably flame you. As
it is, I still see no reason why we should rush out to get a TV. Oh, wait,
I think I see your point - you're saying that for most people TV is a major
part of life, so kids might as well get used to it. Cripes, Judy, ou've
got to ease up on the eliptical style - us slow 'uns have trouble parsing
paragraphs like the one above...
Jonathan
Peter Nelson
: Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
Well, let's start with a more basic question: Does it AFFECT
them? Is a child who watches TV different in any way from
one who doesn't? Does he have any different values, beliefs,
wants, expectations, ideas-about-how-the-world-works, etc?
I think the answer is "yes". Obviously people who have
invested their careers in this topic think so too, be-
cause there are enormous industries that have grown up
around using TV advertising to market products to kids.
The whole premise of advertising is that it is effective at
modifying people's behavior, choices, or perceived wants.
Now maybe that premise is wrong, and all those investors,
executives, armies of psychologists, and reams of research
and a whole multibillion dollar industry based on it, are
based on a false premise, but I'm not brave enough to
bet against them.
On the other hand, if they're right, then what they're
saying is that they can MODIFY YOUR CHILD. And do so in
ways designed entirely to benefit their business.
I know the premise of modern parenting is that it's possible
to immunize children against this. "We'll raise our kids
to ignore or intelligently critique commercials." "They're
exposed to so many of them anyway that they go in one ear and
out the other". I know that's the premise, but as I said,
you're betting against an army of sophisticated experts
and big investors who say otherwise, and based on the success
they've had every year around this time in packing the stores
with kids clutching madly for the lastest fad toy, (what
were they in past years? Cabbage Patch, Nintendo, Barney,
-- I think it's Power Rangers this year), they seem to
have a good track record.
---peter
Peter Nelson
: >Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
: >overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
: >real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
: >
[ description of parents' meeting with school officials
to preview sex-ed and AIDS material, and some parents'
worried reactions deleted for brevity]
: kids the impression that life can be hard." The principal said that it was
: better that they learned that now than to be surprised later.
: This is not to say parents who don't allow TV aren't aware of the real
: world.
I don't think TV has very much to do with the real world,
except that a lot of other people watch it. TV's defi-
nition of "news" is based on sensationalistic items chosen
more for dramatic footage than anything else. Plane crashes,
civil wars, fires, earthquakes, celebrity trials and scandals,
and similar things have very little direct impact on most of
our lives. The stuff that is likely to actually affect our
lives in a real measurable way tends to be dry economic news
like currency exchange rates, cost-of-money, new factory orders,
durable-goods-output and similar stuff. That's not very
telegenic, nor is it likely to be something that it's important
for a small child to understand.
: But I do want to point out that TV can provide starting points
: for discussions,
Sure, but ANYTHING can be a good starting point for discussion.
Driving around the neighborhood, the men working on the street,
the leaves changing color in the fall, the different vegetables
in the supermarket, people going to work in the morning,
an airplane flying overhead, the man unloading the Coca Cola
truck in the parking lot, volunteer work (we prepare meals
for a local homeless shelter), et CETERA!!
: I'm curious. Because we use the TV to start important conversations with our
: kids and because we often use it as an educational tool (I love those Peter
: Jennings specials with the President answering kids questions), I wonder how
: families without TV and with young kids whose reading skills aren't strong
: yet bring up subjects like AIDS, sex, violence, and a lot of other subjects
: that we would like to forget but have to talk about.
Kids are naturally curious about sex and where babies come
from early on. So that's a no brainer. The problem for
some parents is how *not* to talk about it, although I
personally believe sex is part of life and should have
no "special" status. Violence, likewise, is something
that kids will see: children fighting on a playground
and so forth. So I think opportunities will arise. As
for AIDS - if the child is truly preliterate he must be
awfully young - my wife and I were both reading at the
8th-grade level in the second grade - so just how early
does he have to be thinking about AIDS?
I collect letters and diaries from the 19th century.
Among these are many that were started by young people
(14,15) Yet they were intelligent, possessed of a
broad knowledge and understanding of "the real world"
perhaps more so than the average child today of that
age. How did they get that way in a world without
TV?
---peter
sue marquette poremba
says:
>
>Well, someone requested I post on this thread so here I am (skating list
>is slow today :-)
>
>You people are missing the point. YES, we use TV as a baby sitter. We
>put on a video for the kids, lock the bedroom door, and remember ONE of
>the reasons why we got married. It has done WONDERS for our marriage and
>I cannot recommend it highly enough :-) :-) :-) (And being less cranky
>has done wonders for our kids so it pays off both ways :-)
>
>Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
>overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
>real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
>
to Kristi's school to preview the sex education and AIDS films the 5th and 6th
graders were going to see. After seeing the sex ed film -- which was nothing
more than discussing the onset of puberty and a brief discussion on the
reproductive system -- one father stood up and said that he didn't think this
was appropriate material for 10YO. Another mother said that she wasn't sending
her son to school that day because he was afraid to talk about puberty. After
seeing the AIDS videos, a number of parents complained that their children
might be scared by the videos and one parent said, "This is going to give our
kids the impression that life can be hard." The principal said that it was
better that they learned that now than to be surprised later.
This is not to say parents who don't allow TV aren't aware of the real world.
But I do want to point out that TV can provide starting points for discussions,
and parents can use it as a tool to make their kids more aware of the life. I
thought the AIDS videos were scary, but I knew that Kristi and I had discussed
the disease and the information on the video was going to reinforce our talk.
And why did we talk about AIDS? We were watching "Life Goes On" which had a
character with the AIDS virus. Each week, it gave me and Kristi an opportunity
to talk about the disease, about discrimination, etc.
Yes, we use TV as a babysitter sometimes. If it weren't for TV, I couldn't
have my bowling night because the TV keeps Teddy in one spot for an hour so his
dad can sleep before he goes to work. We know what he is watching because he
only watches Nick or the Weather Channel.
I'm curious. Because we use the TV to start important conversations with our
kids and because we often use it as an educational tool (I love those Peter
Jennings specials with the President answering kids questions), I wonder how
families without TV and with young kids whose reading skills aren't strong yet
bring up subjects like AIDS, sex, violence, and a lot of other subjects that we
would like to forget but have to talk about. We read a lot in my house, and I
will sometimes get the kids books and springboard discussions from there. But
I have discovered that the spontaneous discussions thanks to the TV are more
in depth and the kids have more questions than they do in a planned discussion.
Sue Poremba (mom to Kristi and Dylan, aka Teddy)
Jonathan Cave
a) I've read that TV is a good babysitter. For one thing, I'd want to be
sure I knew what kids were watching - I see no reason to trust a
profit-maximizing media-mogul more than I'd trust a human babysitter.
True, outside of Videodrome the TV won't physically abuse children, but
the physical part may be the least of it.
b) The use of TV as a curriculum-setter for family discussions is a bit
artificial. I don't trust its agenda, or its ability to provide things
appropriate to my son's age. I think that shared experience, observation
from real life, or even newspaper articles (which we often use) are far
better. One reason is that TV is a real-time medium (except for videos,
and they have a dynamic of their own). By this I mean that the TV will
rattle on regardless of whether you start a conversation about something on
it. So you have to either sit through the whole thing and go back to it
trying to patch things up in retrospect, or become one of those annoying
people who starts conversations in movie theatres. I would also be
concerned about the passivity of the medium. I know the folks who believe
in it try to project an image of TV-watching as a shared family experience
- but it does not seem to be on a par with a family walk, or reading round,
or even a board game. Each person watches from inside themselves - I don't
think it is shared any more than drug-taking is a communal experience.
c) I also find the notion that TV prepares kids for real life deeply
disturbing. To repeat what many have said - TV is not real life. Even if
it were, or if you limit your kids to CNN and the nonfictional content of
A&E and PBS, there is still the issue of what preparation for real or adult
life entails. Does it seem at all likely that some things are not
appropriate to children at early stages of their development? Or that a
child's ostensible ability to "cope with" disturbing information may be
more feigned than real? Or that exposure to certain kinds of information
at an early age may actually impair the child's utlimate mastery of the
material? If not, I'd strongly suggest turning off the TV for a while and
spending some time observing your children or those of others.
In what sense is indiscriminate or worse, sensationalistic immersion in
the horrors of the world a reasonable preparation for survival or success?
Oddly enough, I thought that childhood was part of the preparation for
adulthood, not an annoyance to be dispensed with as quickly as possible.
This is particularly true of the evil in the world. For centuries, we have
dealt with the introduction of evil to children by muting it, disguising it
and most specifically by presenting the moral and ethical aspects of evil
in metaphors that abstract from the graphic forms of its expression. TV
treatments tend to do the opposite - they wallow in violence and sex in
themselves, without any connection to a context in which these human acts
have meaning. I feel strongly that to teach children that acts have no
meaning but only consequences is very close to abuse - they will miss out
on life's greatest joys, and may well perpetuate the very ills they have
learnt to enjoy or ignore.
Carol Conell-Price
mainly intended to offer those of you who have chosen
or are considering choosing
the non tv approach to raising kids reassurance.
Those in the tv watching majority should not interpret what I am saying
as an argument against any of the advantages they find in tv merely
as a counter showing how the same or similar advantages come about in the
absence of tv.
1) Neither of my kids was an incredibly early reader. But once their
reading came in--ca 6 (which where we live meant mid kindergarten) they
both adored reading.
This may not be related to absence of tv but we suspect it
is .
The benefits to parents are obvious. Unlike tv--books are a very!! portable
babysitter.
When I take my 6 year old to services, I take along a book and if she gets
bored, she sits quietly and reads.
When we shop if my 6 year old doesn't feel like doing it, she takes a book
and sits quietly in the basket and reads.
When my child is recuperating
and not yet up to returning to school,
I can port her to the office,
stick her in the back of a classroom if teaching etc and she reads
and is quiet.
2) Reading makes it possible for us to discuss the news as presented in papers.
It also means that contrary to the fears of some,
my kids are not sheltered from
the seamy side of life.
However, if an article about earthquakes proves upsetting or whatever,
my kids can skip it. Obviously tv watching kids can turn off the tv, but
we hav ethe advantage of being able to each pick individually what we want to
get from the news while sitting together.
----ps obviously this is not exhaustive re advantages of no tv nor
does it cover the disadvantages. Hope this helps if you are tempted
to get rid of your tv or reluctant to buy one just because your kids
want one.
--
van...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
Mike Forbush
> kids and because we often use it as an educational tool (I love those Peter
> Jennings specials with the President answering kids questions), I wonder how
> families without TV and with young kids whose reading skills aren't strong yet
> bring up subjects like AIDS, sex, violence, and a lot of other subjects that we
> would like to forget but have to talk about. We read a lot in my house, and I
> will sometimes get the kids books and springboard discussions from there. But
> I have discovered that the spontaneous discussions thanks to the TV are more
> in depth and the kids have more questions than they do in a planned discussion.
>
We do have a TV and we use it about two hours per day. TV will sometimes
initiate subjects for conversation, but other things do this as well.
For example, Kelsey (3.5 YO) will bring the newspaper to me quite often
and ask me about a picture that she sees in the paper.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Forbush
and now for the funny part....
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and
*kills* uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of
these deaths are caused by inhalation of DHMO, but the
dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Symptoms
of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and
urination, and possible a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting
and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become
dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Coalition to Ban DHMO
211 Pearl St.
Santa Cruz CA, 95060
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!/ The Coalition / no_...@circus.com
Peter Nelson
: I'm so glad to see this posted here. We have a TV in the house, we watch the news and sometimes a PBS special show (like the Baseball series). We also enjoyed some of the Olympics. For fours years we've chossen not to get cable. My husband was a self admitted TV spud. Without revolving your life around the tube it's amazing how many things there are out there to do. The best benefit is talking to your spouse, or other family members. There is no rush in our house to get up from the dinner table, conversati
: on often flows past 9:00.
: Our first child is due in January and I have explained to many that I
: do not intend to change out viewing habits. I have been shot down
: by 9 out of 10 people I tell this to: "oh, that will change" "You'll
: be glad to have the TV to give you a break".
How on earth did people manage to raise happy, intelligent,
well-informed kids in the past, before they had TV?
TV is a terrible baby-sitter. If you were hiring a human
care-giver for your child wouldn't you want them to be able
to offer more to your child than just putting their mind
on hold for an hour or two? Wouldn't you screen them to
make sure they reflected your values and beliefs; i.e., that
the influence they exerted on your child would nudge them
in the right direction? Of course you would.
Also, a human baby-sitter *watches the child*, looks for
reactions and responses and adjusts her/his interaction
accordingly. TV just prattles on, regardless of the
child.
I agree with you - TV is not a suitable babysitter.
---peter
Mike Forbush
>
> Also, a human baby-sitter *watches the child*, looks for
> reactions and responses and adjusts her/his interaction
> accordingly. TV just prattles on, regardless of the
> child.
>
Then you also have the problem of the baby siter that
comes over with a video tape and says "Where is your VCR?"
Lefty Redux
>
>Let's see - he watches "Magic School Bus" and knows what
>white blood cells do. He watches "KidSongs" and knows about
>a lot of exotic animals. He watches "Mister Rogers" and knows
>how they make paper, what origami is. I suppose you can argue
>that I could teach him these things but it wouldn't occur
>to me to talk about white blood cells to a 3 YO. I'm always
>amazed at his capacity to learn and the degree to which
>he can absorb things.
Hmm. Those don't sound like really difficult-to-achieve benefits to
me.
I would argue strongly that it's vastly better for a child of three to
learn how paper is made by _making_ _paper_. It's not hard to do and
you can pick up a kit at any art store for a very reasonable amount.
It consists of a frame with a fine screen. You pulp old paper in a
blender, pour the liquid pulp onto a screen and let it dry. It takes
an hour or so to do, and you can do it as much as you want. All you
need is more old paper.
We've done origami; got a book from the library. Granted, homemade
paper is pretty much too thick for origami.
We know about lots of local animals, like the racoons that visit in
the night, sea otters in the Bay, sea lions, ducks, grebes, sheep and
bats. Granted, we're fortunate in living in an area that has a lot of
local wildlife, but there are really animals everywhere, even in the
biggest city. We're members of the local aquarium; when we lived back
East, we were members of the zoo and the natural history museum. Why
are the "exotic animals" on the television, shadows of real animals
living thousands of miles away, superior to the _real_ ones we can all
see every day if we take a look around?
What exactly are we missing out on? White blood cells? What's the
hurry?
PMH
Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
> and big investors who say otherwise, and based on the success
> they've had every year around this time in packing the stores
> with kids clutching madly for the lastest fad toy, (what
> were they in past years? Cabbage Patch, Nintendo, Barney,
> -- I think it's Power Rangers this year), they seem to
> have a good track record.
Fads have been around forever. How about
Star Wars (in 1977, toy stores couldn't keep the toys on the
shelf. A friend who managed a toy store was told he *ruined*
this lady's son's Christmas.)? Before that there was
hoola hoops & clacker balls. I think advertising in general
is the reason for most of this...whether it's on TV, radio, in
magazines or comics. I didn't watch much kids TV when I
was small but I sure knew about the products.
I subscribe to the moderation notion. We don't say "only
1 hour of TV per day". It's more general than that. Some
days we might watch 3-4 hours and none on other days.
I'm frankly puzzled why some people feel the need to remove
the TV from their house or ban it completely. I don't
understand why, if they don't like what's on, they don't
just turn it off. I have heard some people say that they're
addicted to it and can't turn it off and that's their reason.
I admit I use the TV as a babysitter. Thanks goes to
whoever scheduled Barney for 5pm. I can get dinner ready
without my toddler hanging on my leg, pulling something
over, jumping off the bookcase...you get the idea! :-)
I'm curious...have the people who've banned TV, banned
computer games from their house also?
Patti
Peter Nelson
: In article <CyDxz...@world.std.com>,
: Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
: > and big investors who say otherwise, and based on the success
: > they've had every year around this time in packing the stores
: > with kids clutching madly for the lastest fad toy, (what
: > were they in past years? Cabbage Patch, Nintendo, Barney,
: > -- I think it's Power Rangers this year), they seem to
: > have a good track record.
: Fads have been around forever. How about
: Star Wars (in 1977, toy stores couldn't keep the toys on the
: shelf. A friend who managed a toy store was told he *ruined*
: this lady's son's Christmas.)? Before that there was
: hoola hoops & clacker balls. I think advertising in general
: is the reason for most of this...whether it's on TV, radio, in
: magazines or comics. I didn't watch much kids TV when I
: was small but I sure knew about the products.
But what's your point? I never said TV was the *only*
method to promote fads. My premise is simple: There
is an entire industry based on the idea that people's
(and particularly children's in this example) preferences
perceived wants, and ultimately behavior can be modified
by what they see on TV: advertising and merchandising
tie-ins (e.g., non-commercial stations' promotion of
things like "Barney"). They believe that they can
modify your child. And they've got millions of dollars
and lots of research backing this up.
Of course, having one's behavior and values modified
is part of growing up. Arguably what parents do in
the course of their natural roles is a kind of "brain-
washing" - instilling behavior, values, and attitudes
in their children. And when you send your kids off to
school you want and expect them to come back changed.
But in the case of school those changes are presumably
the kind you want. Presumably you want them to learn
math, science, history, etc, and you generally approve
of the values being promoted, or you wouldn't send your
kid there. In other words, the school has your interests
and those of the child at heart.
The advertsiser, on the other hand, does NOT. He only
wants to make a buck.
: I'm frankly puzzled why some people feel the need to remove
: the TV from their house or ban it completely. I don't
: understand why, if they don't like what's on, they don't
: just turn it off.
Well, you've heard some parents here say they use it for
babysitting, while they do some other activity. In other
words they're not paying detailed attention to what's
on and that's understandable. Watching TV in a detailed,
critical way is a lot of work; it's a lot easier to turn it off.
We don't watch any TV in our house. It's not because there's
*nothing* good on, it's because there is so incredibly little
worth watching that the effort to find it just isn't worth
it.
---peter
Scott Gant
> : Star Wars (in 1977, toy stores couldn't keep the toys on the
> : shelf. A friend who managed a toy store was told he *ruined*
> : this lady's son's Christmas.)?
> But what's your point? I never said TV was the *only*
> method to promote fads. My premise is simple: There
> is an entire industry based on the idea that people's
> (and particularly children's in this example) preferences
> perceived wants, and ultimately behavior can be modified
> by what they see on TV: advertising and merchandising
> tie-ins (e.g., non-commercial stations' promotion of
> things like "Barney"). They believe that they can
> modify your child. And they've got millions of dollars
> and lots of research backing this up.
I think it is all in how you use TV. I certainly don't think that people
who don't watch TV are bad. Nor do I think people who do are bad. It
seems to me that if used wisely, there isn't anything wrong with it. I
don't really agree with using the TV for a babysitter, but then my son is
1y/1m, ask me again at 3y. If you make the material possessions the
important part of TV, then they will be to your child. I can't afford to
buy Kevin everything he will ever want, nor do I intend to try. That is
something that he will have to live with as he grows up. I did when I was
a child. I can remember wanting certain toys in the stores, and not being
able to have them because we didn't have the money to waste. It's a fact
of "real life".
Lefty
>
> Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
> overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
> real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
I tell you, it's pretty astounding that children managed to _survive_ in
"the real world" before television was invented!
I have to believe that we must be suffering from some sort of grave
misunderstanding as to the meaning of the phrase "real world" here.
I'd be interested to hear someone explain in what sense a child who can
neither find the Big Dipper in the sky nor identify the parts of a flower,
but who thinks that Rafael is a turtle and can identify all of the Power
Rangers, is living in the "real world"?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
Lefty Redux
>
>Fads have been around forever. How about
>Star Wars (in 1977, toy stores couldn't keep the toys on the
>shelf. A friend who managed a toy store was told he *ruined*
>this lady's son's Christmas.)? Before that there was
>hoola hoops & clacker balls. I think advertising in general
>is the reason for most of this...whether it's on TV, radio, in
>magazines or comics. I didn't watch much kids TV when I
>was small but I sure knew about the products.
Believe me, we have a _much_ better idea of what sort of things our
child _really_ enjoys now that we don't hear "I wnat that! I want
_that_!" after every commercial for the latest hunk of plastic to hit
Toys-R-Us.
>I subscribe to the moderation notion. We don't say "only
>1 hour of TV per day". It's more general than that. Some
>days we might watch 3-4 hours and none on other days.
>I'm frankly puzzled why some people feel the need to remove
>the TV from their house or ban it completely. I don't
>understand why, if they don't like what's on, they don't
>just turn it off. I have heard some people say that they're
>addicted to it and can't turn it off and that's their reason.
We simply don't see any real benefits to television that outweigh the
numerous disadvantages. I have yet to hear a really convincing case
of a benefit that can't be realized through some other means. Need to
make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old can wash a
carrot. Want to see animals? Go to the park or to a zoo. Want to
learn some science? Get a good book on the night sky, or grow some
plants on the windowsill. Get it from the library if you don't want
to make the investment.
There's a really excellent book you might enjoy, called _You Are Your
Child's First Teacher_, by Rahima Baldwin.
>I'm curious...have the people who've banned TV, banned
>computer games from their house also?
You bet. Those went _first_.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
Erika Stokes
: In article <CyE92...@nntpa.cb.att.com> saa...@mtgpfs1.att.com writes:
: >I'm curious...have the people who've banned TV, banned
: >computer games from their house also?
: You bet. Those went _first_.
What kind of computer games did you ban? Was it just an across the
board ban? If so have you considered that there are a great deal
of educational computer games out there? What about "Wheel of Fortune"
or any of the other shareware games that you can buy for around $10?
Even some of the games that do not seem to be educational are if you
did deeply enough. Some games like "Decathalon" involve the player's
ability to judge what angle to throw things like javelins at and
when to release them for the best score. Maybe you shoudl reconsider.
--Erika
David Kassover
...
>
>Then you also have the problem of the baby siter that
>comes over with a video tape and says "Where is your VCR?"
>
and my wife could go out shopping without it and without the
intended recipient of the gifts. How hard could it be?, I
thought, and took along some reading material. (obtw, this was
well before video recorders in the home, or even CATV, existed
except for extreme hobbyists. For all I know, Jonathan is
reading this now 8-).
The ladies looked at me strangely, and left. As it happens, I
spent the vast part of the afternoon playing a xylophone.
And long before that, the venerable and soon to be retired Hank
Ketcham penned a frame in which Dennis, upon greeting his new
babysitter who has just entered the house with an armload of
homework, demands "When does she think she's gonna have time to
READ?"
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Tony McGregor
ju...@izar.la.locus.com (Judy Tyrer) writes:
>Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
>overprotective parents who try to shelter their little darlings from the
>real world. These kids are totally unprepared for adulthood.
If you are suggesting that not watching TV will make children
"totally unprepared for adulthood" I'd have to disagree.
More than anything else interacting with adults prepares
children for adulthood. TV _tends_ to work against that.
sue marquette poremba <SC...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I'm curious. Because we use the TV to start important conversations
>with our kids and because we often use it as an educational tool (I
>love those Peter Jennings specials with the President answering kids
>questions), I wonder how families without TV and with young kids
>whose reading skills aren't strong yet bring up subjects like AIDS,
>sex, violence, and a lot of other subjects that we would like to
>forget but have to talk about.
When you don't have a TV one of the things you have more time to do is
read to your children. Their ability to read is irrelevant to what you
talk about with children. Almost anything can be a conversation
starter with children.
I'm curious too. What aspects of AIDS, sex and violence do you rely
on TV, to help you talk to kids who are too young to read?
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McGregor ( Tony.M...@rdt.monash.edu.au )
Department of Robotics and Digital Technology,
Monash University, Clayton Campus, Vic 3168, Australia.
Phone: +61 3 9053296 Fax: +61 3 9053574
www: http://www.rdt.monash.edu.au/~bandor/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McGregor
>I admit I use the TV as a babysitter. Thanks goes to
>whoever scheduled Barney for 5pm. I can get dinner ready
>without my toddler hanging on my leg, pulling something
>over, jumping off the bookcase...you get the idea! :-)
Do you worry about the adds?
>I'm curious...have the people who've banned TV, banned
>computer games from their house also?
Not in our case. We have 4 computer games.
D. L. Hanson - N5HPO
>I daresay you understimate the strength of good parenting.
IMHO, you drastically underestimate the effect of television, peers, and other
unwholesome influences on children who are immersed to them.
David L. Hanson Internet --> dlha...@amoco.com
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Ben Moreland
: Judy Tyrer (ju...@izar.la.locus.com) wrote:
: : Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
: Well, let's start with a more basic question: Does it AFFECT
: them? Is a child who watches TV different in any way from
: one who doesn't? Does he have any different values, beliefs,
: wants, expectations, ideas-about-how-the-world-works, etc?
Is there anything a child does that doesn't "AFFECT" them? Watching TV,
reading books, playing with friends, trips to the zoo. The question
is too basic to be of value IMO.
: I think the answer is "yes". Obviously people who have
: invested their careers in this topic think so too, be-
: cause there are enormous industries that have grown up
: around using TV advertising to market products to kids.
: The whole premise of advertising is that it is effective at
: modifying people's behavior, choices, or perceived wants.
: Now maybe that premise is wrong, and all those investors,
: executives, armies of psychologists, and reams of research
: and a whole multibillion dollar industry based on it, are
: based on a false premise, but I'm not brave enough to
: bet against them.
:
: On the other hand, if they're right, then what they're
: saying is that they can MODIFY YOUR CHILD. And do so in
: ways designed entirely to benefit their business.
Don't every underestimate the power of advertising. *BUT* don't
be fooled into thinking that not allowing your child to watch TV
shields them from this. Before my son ever watched a single Power
Rangers episode, he wanted them. Why? Because he saw them advertised
in the paper. He heard how much his friends raved about them. Unless
*I* allow it, TV will not MOLD HIS VALUES. Yes, it will affect to
some degree the kinds of toys he wants. But I have yet to find this
impossible to deal with. Don't take this to mean I never buy him
anything that is TV related. I do. But it is a small part of his
overall set of toys.
: I know the premise of modern parenting is that it's possible
: to immunize children against this. "We'll raise our kids
: to ignore or intelligently critique commercials." "They're
: exposed to so many of them anyway that they go in one ear and
: out the other". I know that's the premise, but as I said,
: you're betting against an army of sophisticated experts
: and big investors who say otherwise, and based on the success
: they've had every year around this time in packing the stores
: with kids clutching madly for the lastest fad toy, (what
: were they in past years? Cabbage Patch, Nintendo, Barney,
: -- I think it's Power Rangers this year), they seem to
: have a good track record.
I can never hope to teach him to totally ignore commercials. Hell, I
can't always do that myself. ;-0 And sometimes it is hard to go through
a store and keep saying, "NO. I'm not buying any PowerRanger toys!" But, as
I posted before, TV is a tool. It can be eduational. It can be a source
of questions about life. It can be purely entertaining. It can also be
bad. But so can radio, books, friends, etc. Supervise their activities
when possible. Discuss the issues and explain why you feel what you
do. Why you believe what you do. Someone posted how do you start
discussion without TV to prompt questions. I've found questions come
from all of your child's experiences: TV, getting out and seeing some
event (good or bad), books, friends, life in general. Everything has
some bad aspect about it. You need to look at the overall effect, not
just, "can it be bad?"
My 0.02.
--
ben father to Limo (3.75 yo)
p. 115
Ben Moreland
: Gail Hatch (On the cutting edge of obsolescence) (ha...@mkots2.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: : I'm so glad to see this posted here. We have a TV in the house, we watch the news and sometimes a PBS special show (like the Baseball series). We also enjoyed some of the Olympics. For fours years we've chossen not to get cable. My husband was a self admitted TV spud. Without revolving your life around the tube it's amazing how many things there are out there to do. The best benefit is talking to your spouse, or other family members. There is no rush in our house to get up from the dinner table, co
: ti
: : on often flows past 9:00.
: : Our first child is due in January and I have explained to many that I
: : do not intend to change out viewing habits. I have been shot down
: : by 9 out of 10 people I tell this to: "oh, that will change" "You'll
: : be glad to have the TV to give you a break".
: How on earth did people manage to raise happy, intelligent,
: well-informed kids in the past, before they had TV?
: TV is a terrible baby-sitter. If you were hiring a human
: care-giver for your child wouldn't you want them to be able
: to offer more to your child than just putting their mind
: on hold for an hour or two? Wouldn't you screen them to
: make sure they reflected your values and beliefs; i.e., that
: the influence they exerted on your child would nudge them
: in the right direction? Of course you would.
: Also, a human baby-sitter *watches the child*, looks for
: reactions and responses and adjusts her/his interaction
: accordingly. TV just prattles on, regardless of the
: child.
--
TV *ALONE* is a terrible baby sitter. TV *ALONE* does not compare to
most human baby-sitters. But, I think TV is a *GREAT* baby sitter while
I'm in the next room making dinner, popping in and out, talking to my
son. There are many times that we never turn the tube on. He *CAN* play
by himself quite well, and does so on many occasions. However, while
I'm cooking and if he wants physical contact, and TV can distract him while
I prepare dinner, I see nothing wrong with him watching approved (by me)
shows during this time. You ask wouldn't I screen a human care-giver
to make sure they reflected my values. The basic ones. Yes. In much the
same way as I choose the shows Limo can watch.
I am *NOT* saying that one *NEEDS* a TV to accomplish the same thing.
I feel that you can get along quite well without TV. I just do not see
why *I* would want to. If it makes our life easier on occasion, and it
provides pleasure, what is really wrong with it. I kind of feel that
much of the line of reasoning on this thread is analogous to whether or
not to buy a young child a tee ball set. On the one side, you would have
people saying the bat is a weapon and the child can hurt himself or others
with it. Definitely do not allow your children to play with tee ball sets.
On the other hand, you have a bunch of people that are claiming, but
baseball is part of life. Our children will be disadvantaged if we don't
allow them to begin playing the game. TV *CAN* be good. TV *CAN* be bad.
As parents, it is up to us to decide which way this medium will be used.
Ben Moreland
: saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) writes:
: >I admit I use the TV as a babysitter. Thanks goes to
: >whoever scheduled Barney for 5pm. I can get dinner ready
: >without my toddler hanging on my leg, pulling something
: >over, jumping off the bookcase...you get the idea! :-)
: Do you worry about the adds?
--
Not as long I remember how to say "No." ;-) [BTW - Barney is on
PBS, no adds, unless you count the show itself as an add for
Barney.]
PMH
>numerous disadvantages. I have yet to hear a really convincing case
>of a benefit that can't be realized through some other means. Need to
>make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old can wash a
>carrot.
This made me laugh...having my kids help is not fun for me.
If I had lots of time, I'd let them help. I *hate* cooking.
My end goal is to get out of the kitchen by 6-6:30 so I can
go play with the kids. I can't tell you the number of times
pots have boiled over on the stove because I've gotten
involved with the kids for 5 minutes to 1) pull my 2 YO off
the stair railing or 2) get him back inside now that he
knows how to open the front screen door (It's to the point
where I can't leave the front door open for a breeze because
he's escaped to the great outdoors!), or mediate an
argument between my 7.5 & 4.5 YO's.
It's been a relief to have Barney on TV at 5 pm so I can
throw dinner together.
Patti
Lefty
Just as I don't believe that it's appropriate for a six-year-old to be
watching TV, I don't feel it's appropriate for one to be using a computer.
Children of that age really need to have _all_ their senses stimulated;
they will get the most benefit out of _real_ things. When our child is
older, there will certainly be occasions to use both television and
computers in a reasonable and controlled way.
I can't imagine that there's anything in the way of "educational" software
that couldn't be done at least as effectively without a computer, given a
little commitment, a little imagination and a little effort.
Why on earth would a child need to use a computer to learn how to throw
something? Is there some advantage to a more-or-less accurate simulation
of throwing something over actually _giving_ _the_ _child_ _something_ _to_
_throw_ that I'm somehow failing to see?
I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
Diane Reese
>Tony McGregor <ban...@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>When you don't have a TV one of the things you have more time to do is
>>read to your children.
>we don't read to the kids. I try to expose my children to a
>great variety of activities and TV is one of them. Reading,
>talking, coloring, playing outside, going to the park etc
>are all activities we expose them to. I try very hard not
>to go overboard on any of these activities.
I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but just keep wondering
what's weird about our family. We have a television; we also have two
computers sporting a variety of games and educational tools for
children, of which we have two, ages 5 and 7. Our sons are allowed to
use 1/2 hour daily on the computer and 1/2 hour at the TV; they have not
used any TV time for at least the last 3 weeks, but they do use their
computer time daily. Our sons are creative, artistic, energetic, loving,
physically active, and entertaining to be with. They don't even care
about Power Rangers! :-) (They know what they are from other kids on the
bus and at school, but have never even asked to see the show on TV, and
have never asked for a P.R. toy. The 7YO told me last weekend that he
thought they were stupid. I was secretly pleased.)
Some of their preferences might come from the example we set for them.
We are constantly reading in our house: magazines, books, newspapers,
reference materials, bedtime stories, you name it. My husband and I also
essentially do not watch TV much (well, except for NYPD-Blue, I have to
admit to watching that). Our TV is in the downstairs playroom (where the
computers also are), so it's not tempting to make it the "background
noise" of our lives (not that we would anyway). We play boardgames and
do math and art together in the evenings, and we enjoy family computer
time sometimes; the boys especially like The Incredible Machine and
Gizmos and Gadgets and puzzle games of that nature, of which I fully
approve. They like to watch the Disney videos we get from time to time,
but their interest in TV otherwise is extremely low.
In short, having a TV (or a computer!) does not need to be a problem, if
a good non-TV-centric lifestyle is modeled, lots of alternatives are
available and encourged, and time limits are set and enforced on usage.
This is just my experience, and I know others feel strongly on each side
of this issue. I just think it's silly to think you have to throw out a
TV altogether in order to ensure that it doesn't dominate your kids'
lives.
Diane Reese
re...@watson.ibm.com
(These opinions are my own, not my employer's.)
Lefty
> In article <dnsCyI...@netcom.com>, Lefty Redux <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Need to make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old
> >can wash a carrot.
>
> This made me laugh...having my kids help is not fun for me.
So, you've actually tried it, then? What was your experience?
> If I had lots of time, I'd let them help. I *hate* cooking.
> My end goal is to get out of the kitchen by 6-6:30 so I can
> go play with the kids.
Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly here: you don't want to
spend time with your kids so you can spend time with your kids, is that
right?
> I can't tell you the number of times
> pots have boiled over on the stove because I've gotten
> involved with the kids for 5 minutes to 1) pull my 2 YO off
> the stair railing or 2) get him back inside now that he
> knows how to open the front screen door (It's to the point
> where I can't leave the front door open for a breeze because
> he's escaped to the great outdoors!), or mediate an
> argument between my 7.5 & 4.5 YO's.
Yes, it takes some time, some patience, and a commitment to making it work
on your part, but it certainly _can_ pay off. As I said, even a
two-year-old can wash a carrot, and then you won't _need_ to be running out
to pull him off the stair railing or get him back inside.
Of course, seven and four year olds can do even more. The fact is that
kids generally love to do this sort of thing; all it takes is some
creativity. Getting a meal together can be a family endeavor in our house,
with everyone getting involved in some way. You never know; you might
start to enjoy it.
> It's been a relief to have Barney on TV at 5 pm so I can
> throw dinner together.
That's too bad.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
Peter Nelson
: My parents had a TV while I was growing up, and so did
: the parents of all of my friends. I never watched it; I thought
: it was very boring. It was very rarely on.
: The only children I ever met who were addicted to TV
: were the children of the only parents I knew who forbade their
: children to watch TV. Those children would want to watch TV
: whenever they came over to my house, and the instant their parents
: weren't watching them at their own house, they'd "sneak" the TV
: on so that they could watch it without sound! I eventually stopped
: inviting them over, because they never wanted to do ANYTHING but
: watch the boring old television.
Why didn't you just say "no"? Clearly they were used to
accepting being told "no TV" at home so this wouldn't have
shocked their little systems too much. It *is* your house,
after all. It sounds like those kids were pretty poorly
raised in ways which had nothing to do with the TV-habits
if they couldn't think of some other fun activity, although
perhaps yopu or your kids could have encouraged them to
try something else instead (perhaps you tried this).
: I only know one adult who likes to watch hours and hours
: of television, regardless of whether the program is any good.
: Her parents didn't let her watch TV when she was a kid. No
: one else I know watches it all that much.
That's anecdotal. According to a Gallup survey of 6000 adults from
June 1990 to June 1992, and published in American Demographics
Magazine TV watching averages between 5.06 and 7.39 hours
a day, depending on the day of the week. As a % of all leisure
time activity it ranges from 26.2% to 34.1%, again depending
on the day of the week. **NO** other activity was even
in double digits on any day.
BTW, I didn't have a (working) TV until I was 14 in 1967 when
my family won a TV in a drawing at the A&P. I eventually became
a typical vidiot and expert channel surfer until I had an
epiphany one day while home sick, when after having surfed
through all 50 channels or so of our cable system several
times without finding anything I reflected on how I hadn't
actually seen ANYTHING on TV in weeks that had made me laugh,
cry, or go "hmmm". Books, music, plays, stage productions,
interactions with people, and even Usenet all do/did those things
with regular reliability. Why not TV? Who knows? But that
was a breakthrough day for me and giving up TV was the second
smartest thing I ever did in my life.
---peter
PS - Marrying my wife was #1.
PMH
Tony McGregor <ban...@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) writes:
>
>>I admit I use the TV as a babysitter. Thanks goes to
>>whoever scheduled Barney for 5pm. I can get dinner ready
>>without my toddler hanging on my leg, pulling something
>>over, jumping off the bookcase...you get the idea! :-)
>
>Do you worry about the adds?
No. There are no ads on PBS. But even when they watch
network tv, they understand they can't have everything
they see. When they say "I want that"...I say "you've
already got something like that" or "forget it" or "maybe".
And that's the end of it...they don't bug me for stuff.
Note that I'm close enough to know what they're watching!
Patti
Peter Nelson
Lefty (le...@apple.com) wrote:
: I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
: allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
: that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
: transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
: with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
I agree about "paint" programs. They do a poor and frustrating job
of simulating the real thing. In general it's not very satisfying to
to usa a tool as a substitute for some other tool that is really
what's desired in the first place.
Computers offer many ways for people to express their creative
impulses *as computers*. That is there are things that only
computers can do. A computer is a not a piece of clay or a
paint brush or a bolt of fabric, and is a poor substitute for
them. But on a computer you can create worlds that don't physically
exist anywhere else. That's a powerful concept for a bright kid
or adult.
Computers *can* be good learning/exploration tools. The better
CDROM encylopediae and similar materials offer an ease of
exploration unmatched with other media. It's very easy, when
exploring Germany in a geography context and stopping in, say,
Leipzig, in an encyclopedia, to click on "Bach" and suddenly
turn it into a biography of J.S. Bach, complete with music samples.
And then maybe this turns into an exploration of "fugues"
or "pipe organs" or "King Frederick of Prussia", the latter
leading perhaps to topics in German history. I think that
for an inquisitive kid these kinds of tools are a wonderful
way to do self-directed education. Printed enclopedias
can do it too, but without the ease of rapid context
switching, without the sound, color images, video clips,
or animation of the CDROMs, and at a much higher cost.
: I would point out, however, that painting programs,
: like other computer games, DO teach children a useful and important
: skill: how to use a mouse/roller ball with accuracy and speed.
: They also teach the basics of computer literacy. These are both
: skills not to be scorned in this Brave New Mac-Oriented World.
I think these are over-rated. I disagree with the attempts
by Apple, etc, to make parents feel guilty for not making
their kids "computer literate". Computers can be useful
and fun, as I noted above, but that's not the same thing
as saying that they're essential for most people - as
computers. In other words, sure there are "computers" in
everything from our telephones to our underwear, but those
are embedded funtions where "computer literacy" is not
relevant.
In terms of *specific* computer skills like mouse-jockeying,
these are transient and will change with the technology.
When I was a kid computers were mythical "electronic brains"
taking up huge rooms, and requiring staffs of manpower just
to change the >tubes<. I had my first computer experience
programming FOCAL in the 12th grade, and saw my first
computer in college. This lack of early childhood experience
didn't stop me from building a computer from scratch in
the 70's, publishing a couple of articles in Byte, and
being a full-time computer nerd today. WHO KNOWS what
computers will consist of by the time today's toddlers
are in junior high, nevermind college! What was that
scene in the Star Trek movie where the guy picked up
the mouse and tried to talk into it?
Computers get easier to use all the time. If and when a
kid actually NEEDS to learn how to use a computer getting
up to speed will take almost no time.
---peter
PMH
Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> TV is a terrible baby-sitter. If you were hiring a human
> care-giver for your child wouldn't you want them to be able
> to offer more to your child than just putting their mind
> on hold for an hour or two? Wouldn't you screen them to
> make sure they reflected your values and beliefs; i.e., that
> the influence they exerted on your child would nudge them
> in the right direction? Of course you would.
> Also, a human baby-sitter *watches the child*, looks for
> reactions and responses and adjusts her/his interaction
> accordingly. TV just prattles on, regardless of the
> child.
>
> I agree with you - TV is not a suitable babysitter.
I disagree. It is a suitable babysitter for the 1/2 hour
I need to make dinner. I choose the channel and program.
It is not feasible to hire a human babysitter for the
1/2 hour. Otherwise this half hour is the most stressful
part of my day.
Does everything a child does in their life *have* to be
educational? I don't think so. TV is entertaining. You
should see my two-year old belly laugh at Donald Duck's
antics and funny voice.
Patti
PMH
Tony McGregor <ban...@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>When you don't have a TV one of the things you have more time to do is
>read to your children. Their ability to read is irrelevant to what you
>talk about with children. Almost anything can be a conversation
>starter with children.
Just because we have a TV and watch it regularly doesn't mean
we don't read to the kids. I try to expose my children to a
great variety of activities and TV is one of them. Reading,
talking, coloring, playing outside, going to the park etc
are all activities we expose them to. I try very hard not
to go overboard on any of these activities.
>
>
>I'm curious too. What aspects of AIDS, sex and violence do you rely
>on TV, to help you talk to kids who are too young to read?
Actually, these topics are not discussed with my children too
young to read. We do not watch shows that discuss these topics.
Not yet, anyway. I have discussed alcoholism because of the
country music station I listen to. My oldest wanted to know
why "the whiskey ain't workin' anymore". :-)
Patti
Sherri Shulman
>
> My parents had a TV while I was growing up, and so did
>the parents of all of my friends. I never watched it; I thought
>it was very boring. It was very rarely on.
>
> The only children I ever met who were addicted to TV
>were the children of the only parents I knew who forbade their
>children to watch TV.
>
>way the kids whose parents didn't let them eat sweets developed
>eating disorders in junior high.
This has to be coincidence. I'm a bit older (I think) than some of the
posters and TV was the thing when I was a kid. The new TV season and the
start of school were September highlights. We had a TV in every room in
the house (my father owned a department store). And I grew up watching
TV _all_ the time. I did homework to TV, exercise to TV. Breakfast to
TV. Whatever. I knew all the theme songs of all the sitcoms.
I never thought of myself as addicted and still don't. I rarely
preferred TV to other activities. My sister, on the other hand, was so
glued to the set that you coulnd't even talk to her during commercials.
Now, all these years later, I don't watch TV at all. For lots of
reasons. I don't have the time. I don't have the patience. My kids don't
watch TV either. We have 2 TVs. And we rent movies sometimes. Often we
rent movies for our daughter, and then don't have time to watch them.
I have noticed that some of her friends come over and want to watch TV
at sometime during their stay. I can't correlate this to how much TV
they watch at home.
I had a theory for awhile that TV addiction was a gene. Some people are
just prone to TV zone out. Put them in front of a TV and the rest of the
world disappears. But the issue of _if_ forbidding TV watching leads to
later TV addiction I think relates more to what you do to replace TV. We
don't watch TV because we are doing other things. No one in our house is
asking to watch TV. We aren't denying ourselves. We just don't watch.
sherri ... mom to ricki (9 yo) and aaron and isabel (2 yo)
PMH
>In article <CyLEv...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) wrote:
>
>> In article <dnsCyI...@netcom.com>, Lefty Redux <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Need to make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old
>> >can wash a carrot.
>>
>> This made me laugh...having my kids help is not fun for me.
>
>So, you've actually tried it, then? What was your experience?
Yes, we do have them help...on weekends.
As I said, since I dislike cooking and anything having to do
with the kitchen, having them help is a time-consuming,
frustrating experience when I don't have the time to be patient.
I'd rather spend my time reading, playing games, doing puzzles.
Oh I can hear it now...cooking is reading (recipes)...puzzling...
can be a game. BUT I DON'T LIKE COOKING.
>> If I had lots of time, I'd let them help. I *hate* cooking.
>> My end goal is to get out of the kitchen by 6-6:30 so I can
>> go play with the kids.
>
>Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly here: you don't want to
>spend time with your kids so you can spend time with your kids, is that
>right?
No. Wrong. I don't want to spend time in the kitchen. There's
a big difference. They go to bed at 8pm. If I can get out of
the kitchen by 6pm, I have 2 hours to play with them. I'd rather
be playing Monopoly than washing dishes OR instructing the kids
on washing the dishes. BTW, my oldest loads & unloads the dish-
washer now. The 4 YO helps set and clear the table. It's not
like they're not helping at all. It's the cooking part that I
have to have peace & quiet for and you can't have a 2 YO
chopping vegetables. :-)
>kids generally love to do this sort of thing; all it takes is some
>creativity. Getting a meal together can be a family endeavor in our house,
>with everyone getting involved in some way. You never know; you might
>start to enjoy it.
I doubt it very seriously because I don't and never have enjoyed
being in the kitchen. I would call it torture. :-)
I don't *want* the family dinner to be an all night affair. I
want to do it and get it over with. I have never been the
type to enjoy a long dinner. I don't like restaurants that
are leasurely. We have a lot of things we try to do after
dinner. Homework, playing outside, playing inside. The big
guys have bikes we're trying to teach them to ride.
>> It's been a relief to have Barney on TV at 5 pm so I can
>> throw dinner together.
>
>That's too bad.
I guess I've implied it's on every night. It's put on when
they get crazy. Now, last night they didn't watch Barney.
It's been a relief that there is something I approve of on TV
at 5pm.
I use it to get the ingredients put together. I've got a few
meals that once it's in the oven or microwave, I can spend
the 20 or so minutes while it's cooking with the kids. My
favorite meal is chicken nuggets and frozen french fries that
I can stick on a cookie sheet in the oven for 20 minutes. No
fuss, no muss. I don't like to eat it but the kids do. I've
also discovered the noodle mixes cook quite nicely in the
microwave for 18 minutes without attention. Those noodle
mixes are the ones that usually boil over on the stove but
NO MORE! :-)
Now, I've found that when I've spent time on real food and
real recipes, the kids won't eat it. I made real mashed
potatoes last week and they wouldn't eat them! That was
a whole lot of work for nothing! I was able to make an
alfredo sauce last week because Dad was home early. I
didn't know you had to constantly stir that stuff for 10 min.
And did the kids like it? Marginally. They wanted red
sauce.
Sorry I've rambled...
Patti
Sarah E Kahn
My parents had a TV while I was growing up, and so did
the parents of all of my friends. I never watched it; I thought
it was very boring. It was very rarely on.
The only children I ever met who were addicted to TV
were the children of the only parents I knew who forbade their
children to watch TV. Those children would want to watch TV
whenever they came over to my house, and the instant their parents
weren't watching them at their own house, they'd "sneak" the TV
on so that they could watch it without sound! I eventually stopped
inviting them over, because they never wanted to do ANYTHING but
watch the boring old television.
I only know one adult who likes to watch hours and hours
of television, regardless of whether the program is any good.
Her parents didn't let her watch TV when she was a kid. No
one else I know watches it all that much.
Coincidence? Possibly. But it reminded me a LOT of the
way the kids whose parents didn't let them eat sweets developed
eating disorders in junior high.
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
: I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
: allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
: that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
: transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
: with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
: --
: Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
Hi, Lefty. I generally agree with you about painting
programs -- they are in no way analogous with really PAINTING.
I would point out, however, that painting programs,
like other computer games, DO teach children a useful and important
skill: how to use a mouse/roller ball with accuracy and speed.
They also teach the basics of computer literacy. These are both
skills not to be scorned in this Brave New Mac-Oriented World.
-- Sarah, who still finds
mice and roller-balls
nearly impossible to
use :-(
Lefty Redux
>
> I would point out, however, that painting programs,
>like other computer games, DO teach children a useful and important
>skill: how to use a mouse/roller ball with accuracy and speed.
>They also teach the basics of computer literacy. These are both
>skills not to be scorned in this Brave New Mac-Oriented World.
Well, Sarah, this is certainly true as far as it goes, but the
questions I'd ask are is there any particular need to learn to use a
trackball or mouse at the age of six or nine or eleven, and what,
exactly, is meant by "computer literacy".
I do fairly serious systems-level programming for a living; I never
touched a computer before I was fifteen or so. This is also true of
many of the people I work with, some of the top computer professionals
in the world. It's much more important to develop in children a love
for learning than a set of specific skills, the better with which to
land a job. Our educational system seems to have lost track of this
point somewhere along the line.
I'd be concerned that, in our quest to come up with a laundry list of
required "literacies" to be taught as early and as efficiently as
possible, we've gotten caught up in a process of robbing children of
their childhoods.
A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
using one.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
Judy Tyrer
Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Judy Tyrer (ju...@izar.la.locus.com) wrote:
>
>: Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
>
> Well, let's start with a more basic question: Does it AFFECT
> them? Is a child who watches TV different in any way from
> one who doesn't? Does he have any different values, beliefs,
> wants, expectations, ideas-about-how-the-world-works, etc?
>
I agree 100%
> On the other hand, if they're right, then what they're
> saying is that they can MODIFY YOUR CHILD. And do so in
> ways designed entirely to benefit their business.
Lots of things will MODIFY MY CHILDREN. I think that's good. Quite
frankly the sooner my 4 YO gets modified to be less argumentative the
better :-)
> I know the premise of modern parenting is that it's possible
> to immunize children against this. "We'll raise our kids
> to ignore or intelligently critique commercials." "They're
> exposed to so many of them anyway that they go in one ear and
> out the other". I know that's the premise, but as I said,
> you're betting against an army of sophisticated experts
> and big investors who say otherwise, and based on the success
> they've had every year around this time in packing the stores
> with kids clutching madly for the lastest fad toy, (what
> were they in past years? Cabbage Patch, Nintendo, Barney,
> -- I think it's Power Rangers this year), they seem to
> have a good track record.
And I'll place all my money on the fact that as a parent the foundation
I am laying in these years when I am the center of my child's universe is
stronger than all the armies of experts out there who will try to "modify
my child".
A lot of things in my children's lives affect them. Their teachers affect
them. Their friends affect them. Their coaches affect them. Their
ministers affect them. I do not have, cannot have, and do not WANT control
over all the things that may AFFECT my children. What I want is a strong
relationship with my children such that I can help them learn how to assess
the effects of their relationships with the world and how to select that
which benefits them and reject that which does not.
Of course, I am also not upset by my children wanting to participate in
the latest fad. So do I! Hey, I'm on the "information superhiway", aren't
you? (Okay, so I've been on it since 1977 and it's only just NOW trendy,
but who says being ahead of the crowd is all bad :-) But what I want them
to know is how to judge whether being part of the fad is valuable.
My son will, after Christmas, have the complete collection of power ranger
action figures (well, his sister will have Kimberly and Trini). However,
he will not have and I will not buy him $18.00 power ranger gloves. But
he wants them. Wow, what a great opportunity for him to a) learn to save
his money and b) learn to take care of the gloves he loses weekly at the
ice rink :-) <You better believe I didn't let THAT opportunity for a lecture
go unused!> We looked at the price of the gloves, we looked at his allowance,
and we looked at the calendar and showed him how long he'd have to go without
buying candy from the candy machine to save enough money for the gloves.
Guess what! He doesn't want those gloves anymore (though they are on his
Christmas list for relatives who don't think they are outrageously priced).
Did TV affect my child? Sure it did. Did it have more of an effect than
our basic parenting skills were capable of handling? OF COURSE NOT!
I daresay you understimate the strength of good parenting.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>
--
Judy Leedom Tyrer
"Challenges make you discover things about yourself that you never
really knew. They're what make the instrument stretch - what make
you go beyond the norm." Cecily Tyson
Sarah E Kahn
: In article <396rbc$j...@nic.umass.edu> SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Sarah E Kahn) writes:
: >
: > I would point out, however, that painting programs,
: >like other computer games, DO teach children a useful and important
: >skill: how to use a mouse/roller ball with accuracy and speed.
: >They also teach the basics of computer literacy. These are both
: >skills not to be scorned in this Brave New Mac-Oriented World.
: Well, Sarah, this is certainly true as far as it goes, but the
: questions I'd ask are is there any particular need to learn to use a
: trackball or mouse at the age of six or nine or eleven, and what,
: exactly, is meant by "computer literacy".
No, it's not a "NEED," per se. I do, however, feel a
twinge of envy whenever I notice the ease and facility with which
younger people can manipulate mice and roller balls. This is
not to say that I think that it is damaging to children NOT to
allow them to develop this skill at a young age; I just wanted to
point out that there IS at least one useful skill which early
computer use can teach.
For that matter, I had very serious coordination problems
as a child, so there really isn't any guarantee that I'd be as
facile with the mouse as those kids now even if they HAD been
around when I was a kid. I spent YEARS trying to learn to catch
a ball, for example, and I could never do it until I was an adult,
when it just "clicked." So maybe the mouse skill would have been
the same way. Who knows?
: I do fairly serious systems-level programming for a living; I never
: touched a computer before I was fifteen or so. This is also true of
: many of the people I work with, some of the top computer professionals
: in the world. It's much more important to develop in children a love
: for learning than a set of specific skills, the better with which to
: land a job. Our educational system seems to have lost track of this
: point somewhere along the line.
I agree. I do, however, think that computers can be fun
for kids, and that they can be used to encourage a love of
learning -- as can anything, really, if approached in the right way.
: A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
: of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
: using one.
I was using hammers LONG before I could have given a
cogent explanation of how it works. I don't see how computers
are any different.
Now I am curious -- do you think that using a computer
could be harmful to a child? If so, how?
All the kids I know just LOVE playing with computers,
and more power to 'em, I say. I agree with you that they are
overrated as "learning machines," but I see no harm in them.
: --
: Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
: In article <396r2h$j...@nic.umass.edu> SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Sarah E Kahn) writes:
: >
: > My parents had a TV while I was growing up, and so did
: >the parents of all of my friends. I never watched it; I thought
: >it was very boring. It was very rarely on.
: >
: > The only children I ever met who were addicted to TV
: >were the children of the only parents I knew who forbade their
: >children to watch TV.
: >
: > Coincidence? Possibly. But it reminded me a LOT of the
: >way the kids whose parents didn't let them eat sweets developed
: >eating disorders in junior high.
: This has to be coincidence. I'm a bit older (I think) than some of the
: posters and TV was the thing when I was a kid. The new TV season and the
: start of school were September highlights. We had a TV in every room in
: the house (my father owned a department store). And I grew up watching
: TV _all_ the time. I did homework to TV, exercise to TV. Breakfast to
: TV. Whatever. I knew all the theme songs of all the sitcoms.
: I never thought of myself as addicted and still don't. I rarely
: preferred TV to other activities. My sister, on the other hand, was so
: glued to the set that you coulnd't even talk to her during commercials.
Okay. I guess it is coincidence, then. It was just
a hypothesis, and a semi-facetious one at that.
I DO find it odd, though, that this sort of TV watching
is so prevalent. I just haven't experienced it first-hand, I guess.
-- Sarah
Beth Weiss
>Lefty <le...@apple.com> wrote:
>>> It's been a relief to have Barney on TV at 5 pm so I can
>>> throw dinner together.
>>
>>That's too bad.
>
>I guess I've implied it's on every night. It's put on when
>they get crazy. Now, last night they didn't watch Barney.
>It's been a relief that there is something I approve of on TV
>at 5pm.
It saddens me to see Patti defending herself to Lefty. I resent the
implication that only bad parents let their children watch TV, and
that if I was a "better" parent, I wouldn't let my child watch any TV
at all under any circumstances.
Clearly, we all have our buttons. Lefty's appears to be television.
That's his right. But I think that he's gone beyond good judgement on
this issue--and his continual implication that if our kids watch any
TV for any reason, that makes us bad parents strikes me as nasty and
mean-spirited--and I don't like it.
--
--Beth Weiss
bwe...@cs.arizona.edu
Jonathan Cave
On the correlation between parental attempts to control TV and later
addiction, I[Cd just like to point out that correlation ain[Ct causality -
from everything that was said, I suspect that the parents who did not
restrict TV watching and whose kids grew up unimpaired were those who did
not need to because other things in their family life competed
successfully with TV for the kids[C attention. When we had a TV, we
didn[Ct impose limits because none were needed. On the other hand, we did
notsanction TV-watching either be example or by using
y or by using TV as a babysitter.
It[Cs a bit like my parents[C [Band my) approach to alcohol - we were not
forbidden to touch it, but allowed a small sip at Pesach. Result - it[Cs
no big deal, and was not a big deal even when other kids were making a big
deal of it [Be.g. in High school - I[Cm *that* old):-) Whether this would
have worked if I were allowed a daily sip, or if my parents used it to
soothe me as a child [Bas my Tante would have said "Ein Tropfchen Rhum kann
nicht schaden" - she was German) I cannot say.
Lefty Redux
>In article <391rct$4...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>Tony McGregor <ban...@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) writes:
>>
>>Do you worry about the adds?
>
>No. There are no ads on PBS.
Hmm. I haven't been in a Toys-R-Us lately, but I seem to recall a
large amount of shelf space given over to Sesame Street toys of all
varieties, as well as all sorts of Barney paraphernalia, not to
mention Thomas the Tank Engine.
What do you consider to constitute an "ad"?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
Lefty Redux
>
>: A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
>: of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
>: using one.
>
> I was using hammers LONG before I could have given a
>cogent explanation of how it works. I don't see how computers
>are any different.
I'm not sure I buy that. Any child who's banged two blocks together
or hit a tree with a stick or the ground with a rock "understands" how
a hammer works. Is it really unclear that a computer is quite
different? I haven't seen too many hammer manuals, nor do I think
that Stanley has a technical support line dedicated to answering
people's questions regarding the use of their hammers.
When was the last time you heard "hammer literacy" cited as a reason
for learning carpentry?
>Now I am curious -- do you think that using a computer
>could be harmful to a child? If so, how?
I think that, in the case of younger children, computer use is
inappropriate in many of the same ways that television watching is.
In their efforts to "make learning easy" and "keep children's
attention", the writers of educational software do many of the same
things that the producers of children's television do, much of which
has the effect of fostering reduced attention spans and impatience
with sustained effort.
Much educational software boils down to a set of flashcards tied to a
bunch of special effects. Children who spend a great deal of time
"learning" in this sort of medium can, I think, find it difficult when
the special effects and easy answers are no longer available. I know
a science teacher who is saddened that many of his students don't have
the patience or the willingness to do real astronomy with a small
telescope; their expectations of big, bright, clear images have been
set so strongly through television and educational software that the
sort of thing they can achieve on their own proves to be a
disappointment to them. Isn't it better to let them discover what
they can see with their own eyes and touch with their own hands
_first_?
> All the kids I know just LOVE playing with computers,
>and more power to 'em, I say. I agree with you that they are
>overrated as "learning machines," but I see no harm in them.
All the kids I know LOVE eating chocolate. What kids "love" is
frequently a poor metric in determining what is good for them.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
Carol Fischer
>We simply don't see any real benefits to television that outweigh the
>numerous disadvantages. I have yet to hear a really convincing case
>of a benefit that can't be realized through some other means. Need to
>make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old can wash a
>carrot. Want to see animals? Go to the park or to a zoo. Want to
>learn some science? Get a good book on the night sky, or grow some
>plants on the windowsill. Get it from the library if you don't want
>to make the investment.
Yes, a two-year old *can* wash a carrot, but a 2-year old who does not
*want* to wash a carrot will not! My 2-yr old helps me prepare dinner at
times, but his attention span is very limited -- I would not expect him to
sit quietly beside me for even 15 or 20 minutes while I prepare dinner.
Going to the park or zoo is a great way to see animals, but my kids'
interest in animals is also sparked by watching great shows on the Discovery
channel. On these shows, we have seen the entire life cycle of many
animals, through close-ups that are simply not possible at the zoo. And we
have been able to observe animal behavior that would take hundreds of hours
of observation (if ever!) to see at the zoo or park.
We have planted gardens (indoors and out) and enjoyed star-gazing, but
again, a good documentary can provide more close-ups and more variety in its
offerings than I can pull together. And, for a child with a short attention
span, a 10 minute television segment on plants may be just the incentive he
or she needs to keep watering the plants & to wait for those first shoots to
appear.
We visit the library at least weekly (& have a personal library that
threatens to take over the house :-)), but there are some things that are
better conveyed on television! If you don't believe me, watch the Discovery
channel or a science show on PBS or a documentary on any other topic that
interests you. If the show is well-done, it will be well worth it.
I have not seen any arguments that convince me that television is inherently
evil. I think that a discerning viewer, who is willing to watch shows with
their children (& screen them beforehand, in some circumstances), has the
opportunity to benefit greatly from television. Of course it isn't the only
thing out there -- we don't *just* watch TV. But IMO, there are lots of
good things on TV -- you just have to be willing to find them & to limit
your viewing to those shows that are worth your time.
Carol Fischer
Mom to Katie (2/12/89) & Mark (8/3/92)
Beth Weiss
Lefty <le...@apple.com> wrote:
>saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) wrote:
>
>> Lefty Redux <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Need to make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old
>> >can wash a carrot.
>>
>> This made me laugh...having my kids help is not fun for me.
>
>So, you've actually tried it, then? What was your experience?
She just told us--it wasn't fun for her.
>> If I had lots of time, I'd let them help. I *hate* cooking.
>> My end goal is to get out of the kitchen by 6-6:30 so I can
>> go play with the kids.
>
>Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly here: you don't want to
>spend time with your kids so you can spend time with your kids, is that
>right?
I think she made lots of sense--and that you're either not reading
carefully or being intentionally offensive.
There are activities I enjoy and activities I don't enjoy. I don't
want to stretch out activities I don't enjoy. If I do that, then I
don't have time to do the activities I _do_ enjoy. There are only so
many hours in the day, and I prefer to spend my time with my son doing
activities one or both of us likes--not doing something I hate.
I'm finding a lot of people's attitudes on TV to be fanatical,
irrational, and offensive. (Yeah--that's strong--but so are the views
I'm reacting to.) I don't CARE if you or your children watch TV. I
actually AGREE that some parents and some children watch way too much
TV. But the notion that _any_ TV in someone's household is too much
TV shows a lack of rational thought, IMNSHO.
There are some people who have to give up TV cold turkey, just as an
alcoholic can't have just one drink. But there are lots of people who
can occasionally drink socially without any problems developing. And
those who think everyone ought to get rid of their TVs strike me as
just as ridiculous as those who think nobody ought to ever drink
alcohol--they're projecting their (usually religious) beliefs on me,
they're assuming that I have the same requirements and vices they do,
and they're intruding on a decision that's none of their business.
--
--Beth Weiss
bwe...@cs.arizona.edu
Ben Moreland
: In article <CyLEv...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, saa...@mtfmb.att.com (PMH) wrote:
: > In article <dnsCyI...@netcom.com>, Lefty Redux <d...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > >Need to make dinner? Let your child help. Even a two-year-old
: > >can wash a carrot.
: > This made me laugh...having my kids help is not fun for me.
: So, you've actually tried it, then? What was your experience?
I think many of us have tried it. Sometimes it is feasible and sometimes
it is just much simplier without the child(ren) involved.
: > If I had lots of time, I'd let them help. I *hate* cooking.
: > My end goal is to get out of the kitchen by 6-6:30 so I can
: > go play with the kids.
: Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly here: you don't want to
: spend time with your kids so you can spend time with your kids, is that
: right?
I'd much rather spend time that is totally devoted to my son than
running around, stirring this, mixing this, transferring that, etc
(ie, being distracted). I really find it hard to believe you didn't
get Patti's point.
: Yes, it takes some time, some patience, and a commitment to making it work
: on your part, but it certainly _can_ pay off. As I said, even a
: two-year-old can wash a carrot, and then you won't _need_ to be running out
: to pull him off the stair railing or get him back inside.
If you can and want to get your children involved with dinner preparation
every night, and the children enjoy it, good for you. But if my son has
more fun watching a show than pealing a carrot, why the hassle? Limo does
help me set the table, and on occasion, he'll help with some of the
meal prep. But given his choice, sometimes he'd rather play with his
toys (without Dad), sometimes he likes to watch TV. He's happy. We have
*tons* of time in which we do one-on-one activities, including watching
TV shows and movies. Why does *everything* a child does have to be
educational. I have spent many a wonderful night with other adults
discussing Giligan's Island, and other non-educational shows. Had I
not watched them, I wouldn't have been able to participate in these
very funny and good conversations. I'm sure you're response is you
wouldn't have wanted to join in anyway. Good for you. If you find
ways to enjoy yourself with others that involve talking about the
stars or other "more intellectual and worldly" matters, GREAT! I mean
this seriously. But some of us like to talk about less important
matters and have a great time doing it. Don't get me wrong, I do not
have Limo watch TV so someday he can discuss these shows with his
friends. My point is that *I* have found advantages to watching TV,
some purely entertaining (no insight or learning attempted) and I
personnally think that is is fine. We are all different. Don't expect
me to believe that what you find as "worthy" of spending your time on
as what I want to do as well.
: > It's been a relief to have Barney on TV at 5 pm so I can
: > throw dinner together.
: That's too bad.
For you maybe, but not for all of us.
David Kassover
...
>
>I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
>allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
>that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
>transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
>with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
>
With a paint program, one doesn't have the problem of the paint
appearing on one's walls.
Nor quite as severe a problem of management of the products of
the effort or consumables.
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
David Kassover
>
>No. There are no ads on PBS.
There aren't? Then what do you call voice-overs like "The
preceding program is brought to you by The VeryVeryVery BIG
Corporation of America"?
Or shows like "The New Yankee Woodshop", which is one long
powertool commercial?
(Yes, the boys to whom they are marketing those toys are not,
ostensibly, children. But there do exist kids like my daughter,
two of whose first words were "Zamboni" and "Backhoe", and who
could *not* be pried loose from the TV in the department store,
which was showing episodes of This Old House...)
David Kassover
>
>Well, Sarah, this is certainly true as far as it goes, but the
>questions I'd ask are is there any particular need to learn to use a
>trackball or mouse at the age of six or nine or eleven, and what,
>exactly, is meant by "computer literacy".
>
In the words of a Director of a local Daycare facility:
"Kindergarten is great, Kindergarten is coming.
And you need Calculus to get in."
Some years ago, a colleague of mine and I were discussing his
kids' homework. I opined that my kid would have trouble, a la
"Gee, I'm sorry, Miss Gefultefish, but I couldn't do this
assignment. Daddy's VAX doesn't have Basic"
This is not so much a problem any more, I no longer have the VAX.
>
>A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
>of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
>using one.
>
Do you really need to understand accounting, computing, and
electronic networking before learn to use an ATM?
Lefty
Weiss) wrote:
>
> It saddens me to see Patti defending herself to Lefty. I resent the
> implication that only bad parents let their children watch TV, and
> that if I was a "better" parent, I wouldn't let my child watch any TV
> at all under any circumstances.
I think you're reading an implication where none exists, Beth. Perhaps you
might take a look at the title of this thread, and see whether you're able
to divine what the subject is. Why, it's about _watching_ _television_! I
guess we're attempting to discuss that subject.
Now, forgive me if I'm going about this the wrong way, but my impression
has always been that discussing a subject involved presenting one's point
of view. Apparently my point of view is causing you some significant
degree of distress, to the point where you're reduced to name-calling and
abortive attempts at mind-reading. I honestly don't think you're adding
much here in this fashion.
> Clearly, we all have our buttons. Lefty's appears to be television.
> That's his right. But I think that he's gone beyond good judgement on
> this issue--and his continual implication that if our kids watch any
> TV for any reason, that makes us bad parents strikes me as nasty and
> mean-spirited--and I don't like it.
Funny thing. When people refer to a "button", they usually mean something
which provokes an irrational response. Now, I actually did some reading on
the subject of children and television. As a result of that reading, I
came to a considered conclusion which I've been attempting to express here.
I haven't derided anyone, I haven't called anyone names, I haven't
characterized anyone as a "bad parent" or as anything else.
What have _you_ been doing, Ms. Weiss? Making unfounded accusations as to
my having a "religious" agenda, making personal characterizations of
nastiness, mean-spiritedness, etc. Whose button is that, anyway?
Based on the email I received from you, I gather that you've done no
research at all on the subject at hand, don't care to, and don't wish to
hear anything that might conflict with what you're currently doing. Get a
kill file, Ms. Weiss. Put the following entry in it:
/Lefty/h:j
You'll no doubt sleep better. I'd hate to think I was unsettling your
prejudices in any significant way.
NORMAN CARVER
On the issue of introducing kids to computers
(that has crept into this thread):
A couple of people have noted that they weren't introduced
to computers until their teens and they are now computer
professionals. So? This is more a "historical accident"
than anything else. For those of us that are a certain age,
being introduced to computers earlier simply wasn't an option
since computers were not widely available. Only time will
tell whether those that get a later introduction to computers
will be competitive with their peers that have had an earlier
introduction--or whether those that get an earlier start won't
be much more proficient than those of us that couldn't. (Do I
have to cite the numerous studies that have documented the poor
quality of much current software?)
Having taught introductory computer courses to college-level
students (that had had little/no prior computer exposure), I will
tell you that some immediately "get it," but many do not. Perhaps
earlier exposure to the basic concepts involved in programming
a computer would have helped these students.
Of course, one poster seemed to question whether a basic level
of computer competency is really necessary these days. Leaving
aside the issue of what many exployers seem to want, maybe not.
However, the fact that a significant number of people can't follow
the fairly simple instructions to do something like set their VCR's
clock leads me to believe that the ability to understand how to
formulate/interpret step-by-step procedures for accomplishing goals
isn't a useless skill in today's world. Perhaps computers can help
to teach this skill.
(BTW: this VCR clock thing isn't limited to the U.S.--it is a
concern even among the Japanese, according to some Japanese
scientists that I have spoken with.)
Norman Carver, PhD
Research Assistant Professor
Computer Science Department
University of Massachusetts
Peter Nelson
: Some years ago, a colleague of mine and I were discussing his
: kids' homework. I opined that my kid would have trouble, a la
: "Gee, I'm sorry, Miss Gefultefish, but I couldn't do this
: assignment. Daddy's VAX doesn't have Basic"
Apple Computer Corp. has done a marvelous job making
parents feel guilty if their kids are not "computer
literate" And don't get me wrong - I think computers
are great: I have 486/33 with a 465M hd, 16M RAM, etc
at home and I'm planning to get a second (Pentium) system
and network them together. But then, I'm a nerd, and
my nerdy wife has an idea for a home business involving
multimedia.
Nor do I deny that some kids would probably find much
stimulation and exploration in computers. And others
wouldn't.
But what I'm waiting to hear is why they are seen as so
necessary. I'm on a middle school council in my town
and I had an interesting conversation with a consultant
in our School Department who has a $0.5 million budget
to buy computer technology for use in school. So I was
trying to get him to clarify what he saw as the benefits
of computers in the educational process and cite to
me some studies or data that would convince me that
this was the best way for us to spend that much money.
He didn't really have much to offer - it just seemed like
an article of faith with him, and I suspect with a lot
of other people, too.
I think he was surprised that a computer nerd like me
was even asking - as though a priest or rabbi had sud-
denly asked him why anyone should believe in God.
But just because I personally think they're fun doesn't
mean that we *might* not be better off hiring a bunch of
teachers for that money, putting in a new science lab,
buying some new books for the library, or doing any of
several other things where we've already demonstrated some
real needs. Or <gasp> cutting the budget by that much!
(I'm a taxpayer, too)
On the other hand, maybe computers could be a real
personnel multiplier, raise SAT scores, produce a
raft of budding young Richard Feynman's and ensure
the future prosperity of our town. I hust want to
hear something more than faith on it.
---peter
Lefty Redux
>In article <dnsCyM...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (Lefty Redux) writes:
>>
>>A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
>>of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
>>using one.
>
>Do you really need to understand accounting, computing, and
>electronic networking before learn to use an ATM?
No, but an ATM is simply a money-dispensing machine. The relevance of
networking, for instance, to its functional operation is virtually
incidental. Let's keep in mind that we have been discussing computers
as "educational tool", a very different paradigm.
I _would_ suggest that, before one uses an ATM, one should have a
sufficient grasp of personal finance to understand that it's not
simply a machine that one has to tickle in a particular way to induce
it to disgorge money -- one should really realize that the money is
coming from _somewhere_. Otherwise, you run the risk of falling into
the fallacy of thinking that you can't be overdrawn because you
haven't run out of checks yet.
Walter Jeffries
In article <Cyp9K...@crdnns.crd.ge.com> (misc.kids), kass...@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) writes:
> In article <dnsCyM...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (Lefty Redux) writes:
> >A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
> >of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
> >using one.
>
> Do you really need to understand accounting, computing, and
> electronic networking before learn to use an ATM?
Well, *grin* it sort of depends on what you want them to do with the
ATM. I mean, if you want your kids to be able to hack them and
amass great fortunes overnight from other people's accounts then
they are going to need to understand electronics, networking and
programming to a certain degree... :-)
Actually I completely disagree with the previous poster
(Lefty). A computer is just like a hammer and the sooner
kids learn to pound nails the better. Our 2yo son loves
using our hand tools (we do draw the line at the skill saw
though :) ) and he has loved them since he was about 8
months old. Why? Because he sees us use them (we're
building our own house) and he also sees us using our
computers all day (we work at home). So, he loves using the
computers and is quite skilled at them, turning them on,
turning on the monitor, putting on the head set (so I don't
have to listen to the computer talk to him), moving the
mouse to open his software, using the programs and then
when he is all done he quits out of the program (cmd^Q -
he's on a Mac), shuts down the computer and turns it all off.
He uses it just like a hammer. He doesn't know how it
works, what pushes the electrons around and around, what
drives the gates, how disk drives work, principles of
magnetism and NPN junctions, but he also doesn't know the
equations for calculating mass, velocity and force when he
uses a hammer (I hope you do - put that hammer back down if
you don't! :) ). I do know those things, and how to program
the computer, or build one from scratch (I mean from the
transistor level, I'd rather not build my own transistors
thanx :) ) and I am sure he'll learn what ever he needs to
in the coming centuries. Most adults using computers just
use them, they don't know "how one works". It's just magic.
Most people can't even explain how electricity works to
turn on the light when they flip the switch, but they still
are quite functional in society and excellent light switch
flippers. It's nice to know everything like you Lefty, but it's
not absolutely necessary to be a functioning human being.
Start 'em young I say!
Sarah E Kahn
: In article <399bia$g...@nic.umass.edu> SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Sarah E Kahn) writes:
: >
: >: A computer is not a hammer. Better to wait until a child is capable
: >: of developing some level of understanding of how one works before
: >: using one.
: >
: > I was using hammers LONG before I could have given a
: >cogent explanation of how it works. I don't see how computers
: >are any different.
: I'm not sure I buy that. Any child who's banged two blocks together
: or hit a tree with a stick or the ground with a rock "understands" how
: a hammer works. Is it really unclear that a computer is quite
: different?
Okay. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that you
would wait until a child could understand the PRINCIPLES which
govern how a computer works before you'd want them using one.
: I think that, in the case of younger children, computer use is
: inappropriate in many of the same ways that television watching is.
: In their efforts to "make learning easy" and "keep children's
: attention", the writers of educational software do many of the same
: things that the producers of children's television do, much of which
: has the effect of fostering reduced attention spans and impatience
: with sustained effort.
I hear you. I think you've got a point there. I don't
consider television quite as much a bane as you do, but I suspect
that you are right in that the aspects of children's television
I despise might well pop up again in children's software.
: > All the kids I know just LOVE playing with computers,
: >and more power to 'em, I say. I agree with you that they are
: >overrated as "learning machines," but I see no harm in them.
: All the kids I know LOVE eating chocolate. What kids "love" is
: frequently a poor metric in determining what is good for them.
Well, I wouldn't deny a child chocolate either (unless
he had a severe allergy to it). I wouldn't let him make himself
sick on it, but I wouldn't forbid him ever to eat it. I think
that everyone is entitled to have a few things they do just
because they like it, regardless of whether it is "good for them."
-- Sarah
PMH
David Kassover <kass...@aule-tek.com> wrote:
>In article <CyLH8...@nntpa.cb.att.com> saa...@mtgpfs1.att.com writes:
>...
>>
>>No. There are no ads on PBS.
>
>There aren't? Then what do you call voice-overs like "The
>preceding program is brought to you by The VeryVeryVery BIG
>Corporation of America"?
I forgot those. I guess they didn't make a big impression
on me. I don't recall them advertising *products* though
(but of course someone will correct me if I'm wrong! :-).
>Or shows like "The New Yankee Woodshop", which is one long
>powertool commercial?
Hmmm. I've seen this show once or twice...I guess you'd
have to know the difference between tools to notice. I was
more interested in what they were making than what they
were using.
I don't pay attention to commercials. Being an avid reader,
I remember reading during commercials as far back as I can
remember.
Patti
Peter Nelson
: In article <CyDxz...@world.std.com>,
: Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
: >: Other than that, I don't think TV harms kids. What I think harms kids are
: >
: > Well, let's start with a more basic question: Does it AFFECT
: > them? Is a child who watches TV different in any way from
: > one who doesn't? Does he have any different values, beliefs,
: > wants, expectations, ideas-about-how-the-world-works, etc?
: >
: > I think the answer is "yes".
: I agree 100%
: > On the other hand, if they're right, then what they're
: > saying is that they can MODIFY YOUR CHILD. And do so in
: > ways designed entirely to benefit their business.
: Lots of things will MODIFY MY CHILDREN. I think that's good. Quite
: frankly the sooner my 4 YO gets modified to be less argumentative the
: better :-)
Sure, and if that's the kind of modification that results
from TV, then great. Of course, there's at least some
evidence that TV makes kids more aggressive (I'm not
sure whether "aggressive == argumentative"), although
that's not central to my point and I realize this is
a controversial subject so I'm not going to take sides in
the "does TV make kids violent?" debate.
But all of that aside, the raison d'etre of TV, or at least
commercial TV, is to modify him in ways to suit the
*advertisers*. TV is not an entertainment medium that
happens to have advertising; it's an advertising medium
interspersed with enough entertainment to hold your
attention. PBS is a more complicated issue - I can develop
the argument that it is rapidly becoming just another commercial
network, but I would say it's *quite* as bad yet.
And the advertisers are GOOD at it; they know what they're
doing, they've built a vast industry on being good at
what they do.
: My son will, after Christmas, have the complete collection of power ranger
: action figures (well, his sister will have Kimberly and Trini). However,
: he will not have and I will not buy him $18.00 power ranger gloves. But
: he wants them. Wow, what a great opportunity for him to a) learn to save
: his money and b) learn to take care of the gloves he loses weekly at the
"The enemy captured the town but we knocked out a few of his
tanks in the process."
---peter
Lefty Redux
>Lefty Redux (d...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: > All the kids I know just LOVE playing with computers,
>: >and more power to 'em, I say. I agree with you that they are
>: >overrated as "learning machines," but I see no harm in them.
>
>: All the kids I know LOVE eating chocolate. What kids "love" is
>: frequently a poor metric in determining what is good for them.
>
> Well, I wouldn't deny a child chocolate either (unless
>he had a severe allergy to it). I wouldn't let him make himself
>sick on it, but I wouldn't forbid him ever to eat it. I think
>that everyone is entitled to have a few things they do just
>because they like it, regardless of whether it is "good for them."
I think the question becomes "Is there any reason to think it might be
harmful?" or "Do the potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks?"
Having taken a good look at television, and given that there are other
forms of entertainment that seem to be less prone to abuse, why bother with it?
Believe me, I'm certainly not arguing that children's lives should be
entirely dictated by what's "good for them" at the expense of what
they enjoy. Far from it. However, our experience has been that,
without television, we're spending time together doing things we _all_
enjoy. Yes, it takes creativity; yes, it takes a commitment. I
definitely feel it's paid off for us, though.
Peter Nelson
: A couple of people have noted that they weren't introduced
: to computers until their teens and they are now computer
: professionals. So? This is more a "historical accident"
: than anything else. For those of us that are a certain age,
: being introduced to computers earlier simply wasn't an option
: since computers were not widely available.
As one of those accidents, I would note that when I went to
UMass there was no undergraduate C.S. program (there WAS a graduate
program, oddly) - so I took some graduate courses and was
otherwise self-taught. What I'm saying is that someone who's
motivated and curious will pursue that interest, and I'm not
convinced that the others *need* to become computer programmers.
. . .
: Having taught introductory computer courses to college-level
: students (that had had little/no prior computer exposure), I will
: tell you that some immediately "get it," but many do not. Perhaps
: earlier exposure to the basic concepts involved in programming
: a computer would have helped these students.
"Perhaps". And perhaps not. But while the jury is still out
on that topic, and on the question of whether it matters if
all students "get" computer programming, I don't see why we
keep making parents feel guilty over whether their kids
have computers. (Especially when there are so much BETTER
things to make them feel guilty over - like letting
their kids GET programmed by Power rangers ads on TV!
8-) 8-) 8-) )
: Of course, one poster seemed to question whether a basic level
: of computer competency is really necessary these days. Leaving
: aside the issue of what many exployers seem to want, maybe not.
: However, the fact that a significant number of people can't follow
: the fairly simple instructions to do something like set their VCR's
: clock leads me to believe that the ability to understand how to
: formulate/interpret step-by-step procedures for accomplishing goals
: isn't a useless skill in today's world. Perhaps computers can help
: to teach this skill.
Again, maybe this is true. But we don't know. As a
competent C++ programmer who *still* finds instructions
for programming and using entertainment electronics
baffling sometimes, I would argue that the real fault
is not that we aren't teaching more people programming,
but that colleges and universities are doing a poor job
of teaching the students who MAJOR in C.S. and E.E.
the basics of good user-interface design! There are
widely accepted standards and models of good interface
design which I see grievously violated on a regular basis
in consumer products. Forget those undergrads trying
to meet some core requirement and concentrate on what
you're foisting off on those of us in the industry!
At the company where I work now we've had to run
courses in user-interface design because engineers
entering the workforce from college don't seem to have
mastered the basic principles.
---peter
Peter Nelson
: I suspect that a lot of the hype about computers in the classroom comes
: from anxious parents who are afraid their children won't be part of the
: Infobahn or won't get good job. Frankly, I would rather my daughter go
: to a school where they encourage her to think and foster a love of
: learning...but then I live in California where some people see thinking
: by children as some sort of subversive plot
A lot of places are like that. And a lot of the toys kids
get today are the same way - action dolls or video games where
the basic "point" or concept is predefined for them.
When I was a kid we were poor-ish and lived in a rambling farmhouse
in New London, New Hampshire where my father and half-brother
were refurbishing the place. My father was a civil engineer
and had a buddy come by with a dumptruck of sand and dropped
it in the side yard, forming an enormous sand pile. (I think
my mother was mortified). We also had lots of bits of pipe,
hunks of wood, electrical junction boxes and whatnot. Those
were my toys. Totally open-ended! That kind of stuff
is the raw material for building whole universes!! I made
trucks, architecture, landscapes, moonscapes, rockets,
you name it! I learned to think and use my imagination!
I took ideas from books (I was reading from an early age)
and made them real.
If I decide to have kids, he or she will get open-ended
toys - blocks, tinkertoys, erector sets, etc. In fact
a gigantic sand pile sounds like a great idea, even if my
wife is annoyed!
---peter
(vide the scuttling of the
: new CLAS tests).
: Ellen Braner Grinnell
: (who will be teaching 11 month old Lilly to be computer literate,
: nonetheless).
Laura Dolson
Sarah E Kahn (SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: Lefty (le...@apple.com) wrote:
: : I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
: : allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
: : that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
: : transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
: : with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
: Hi, Lefty. I generally agree with you about painting
: programs -- they are in no way analogous with really PAINTING.
I agree with both of you here.
HOWEVER, I would argue that while it isn't painting, it is ANOTHER
mode of creative art. Emily finger paints, creates art with shaving
cream, markers, real paint, crayons, playdoh, cut-and-paste, etc,
etc, etc (she loves art projects). She also uses Kidpix, Magic
Theatre, and a regular paint program. The computer art programs
aren't INSTEAD of other art, but in addition to. She can do things
with the computer art that she can't do with a paint brush and vice
versa.
One of her current favorites is to take the icons in Kidpix and alter
them. It's pretty interesting to her to see how changing a few pixels
changes the overall design. This is one of the many things she can explore
via computer that would be more difficult otherwise.
Playing with a computer isn't a substitute for other parts of the world
(I refuse to say "real world" because computers are a part of the
real world!), but you CAN do things on computers you can't easily
do otherwise. I do agree, though, that there isn't a lot of children's
software out there to serve this purpose - we (I use we because I
am heavily influenced by my husband on this) think that 99% of the
children's software out there is dreck. (Mark is VERY picky on this
point!) But to get back to the javelin-throwing analogy referred
to in another post on this thread. Sure, computer javelin-throwing
can't substitute for getting out there and throwing a stick in the
yard. But with a computer, you could see what it would be like
to throw that javelin in various environments - say, with different
gravity, or through mediums of varying viscosity - now THAT would
be interesting and "educational".
There is also something to be said, I think, for a general familiarity
with what computers can do. Emily has sent email to friends, for
example. We have found fun pictures and info on the Web with her
- a "movie" about ocean temperatures, - lots of stuff. One thing she
likes is to use Mosaic to take a downloaded picture and change the
color saturation, or red-blue-green balance. At age 3.5, she's just
playing, but it is an introduction to how those colors go together
to make up pictures.
Related CTTS: The other night at the dinner table, Emily was asking
about what telephone cable was (she had heard a real estate agent
refer to it). Mark gave her an explanation of how the cables are
connected centrally, etc, and Emily said "Hey! It's just like a
World Wide Web!".
--
Laura Dolson
dol...@crl.ucsd.edu
Mike Forbush
>
> Lots of things will MODIFY MY CHILDREN. I think that's good. Quite
> frankly the sooner my 4 YO gets modified to be less argumentative the
> better :-)
>
This is really strange. You want your child to be less argumentative.
This sounds like your saying that you would like your child to
do what he's told without questioning. This is very dangerous.
It's exactly how the Nazis, the Communists and many other totalitarian
regeims control their population.
I assume that you know the difference, but will your child?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Forbush
and now for the funny part....
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and
*kills* uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of
these deaths are caused by inhalation of DHMO, but the
dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Symptoms
of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and
urination, and possible a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting
and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become
dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE:
* Is also known as hydric acid, and is a major component of
acid rain.
* contributes to the greenhouse effect.
* may cause severe burns.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness
of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer
patients.
CONTAMINATION IS REACHING EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost
every stream, lake and reservoir in America today. But the
pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found
in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has caused
*millions* of dollars in property damage.
DESPITE THE DANGER, DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IS OFTEN USED:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing,
produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food
products.
Waste DHMO is allowed to pollute our precious lakes, rivers,
streams and the ocean itself. The impact on wildlife is
extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
THE HORROR MUST BE STOPPED!
The American government has *refused* to ban the production,
distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to it's
"importance to the economic health of this nation." In
fact, the navy and other military organizations are
conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing
multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it
during *warfare* situations. Hundreds of military research
facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated
underground distribution network. Many store large
quantities for later use.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE!
Act NOW to prevent further *contamination. Find out more
about this dangerous chemical. What you don't know CAN hurt
you and others throughout the world. Send email to
'no_...@circus.com' or a SASE to:
Coalition to Ban DHMO
211 Pearl St.
Santa Cruz CA, 95060
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!/ The Coalition / no_...@circus.com
Lefty
car...@themis.cs.umass.edu (NORMAN CARVER) wrote:
>
> Having taught introductory computer courses to college-level
> students (that had had little/no prior computer exposure), I will
> tell you that some immediately "get it," but many do not. Perhaps
> earlier exposure to the basic concepts involved in programming
> a computer would have helped these students.
Perhaps. Of course, perhaps spending several days bungee-jumping, or
eating nothing but _escargot bourgignon_ for a month, would have helped
them as well. In any case, it's simply speculation; as far as I know,
there's no particular evidence to support the belief that there's
significant value in early exposure to computer-related concepts or to
computers themselves.
> Of course, one poster seemed to question whether a basic level
> of computer competency is really necessary these days.
In order to forestall any silliness later on, if the "one poster" to whom
you're referring here should, by some strange chance, happen to be me, I
did no such thing. Here's what I _did_ say:
> [T]he questions I'd ask are is there any particular need to learn to use a
> trackball or mouse at the age of six or nine or eleven, and what,
> exactly, is meant by "computer literacy".
The first issue we've already addressed. There's no reason that I know of
to believe that a child will be disadvantaged in any way by learning to use
a mouse at age sixteen versus age six.
The second issue, that of so-called "computer literacy", is a more
complicated one. Typically, what falls under that heading these days is
hand-waving in the direction of the concepts underlying the actual
operation of computers, i.e. worthless trivia such as "what is the binary
number system" or "what is a NAND gate", followed by basic instruction in
some particular computer operations (such as copying or deleting files) and
running some particular programs (such as a specific word processor, or a
specific spreadsheet), all in a specific environment on a specific
platform.
Now, _real_ literacy is a valuable skill because, having acquired it, one
can proceed to apply it to any book (subject to one's ability to understand
the book in question). "Computer literacy" has no such general value.
Learning to use Lotus 1-2-3 on a DOS machine will not help you much when it
comes to learning Claris Resolve on a Macintosh. Moreover, even learning
to copy files on a DOS machine will be of no assistance at all when trying
to divine how to do the same operation on a Mac! This problem even exists
between, for example, Windows 2 and Windows 3.
Computer skills in general have a terribly short half-life. I find the
punch-card handling and flow-charting skills I learned in college to be of
no use today. Likewise, I don't get much use out of the FORTRAN and PL/I I
spent so much time on. The concept of "user interface" didn't even exist
at that time. There's absolutely no reason to believe that any particular
skills that might be taught to a third-grader today will be of more than
marginal utility when that third-grader enters the job market. Much better
to teach children to _learn_ than to stuff them full of trivia and
so-called "skills".
What is dignified with the title "computer literacy" appears to be nothing
more than a pedagogical fad.
> Leaving aside the issue of what many exployers seem to want, maybe not.
> However, the fact that a significant number of people can't follow
> the fairly simple instructions to do something like set their VCR's
> clock leads me to believe that the ability to understand how to
> formulate/interpret step-by-step procedures for accomplishing goals
> isn't a useless skill in today's world. Perhaps computers can help
> to teach this skill.
Not too likely. Many people who are skilled with computers can't set their
VCR's clocks, either. This generally seems to be because the user
interface design is so utterly inadequate to the task as to be completely
unworthy of the name. One can do it with the manual in hand, but if the
manual goes missing, all is lost. I'm reminded of a cartoon in which two
men are sitting at a personal computer, with one saying to the other,
"Well, _you_ may think it's user friendly, but it doesn't seem to have
taken much of a liking to anyone else!"
I don't, in point of fact, believe that the necessity for setting the
clocks on VCRs will, by the way, be a make-or-break issue in how well our
children do with the world they inherit from us. Better to teach the
engineering students who will be designing the VCRs about human factors
assessment than to fill small children's heads with soon-to-be-obsolete
trivia in the hopes of addressing this "problem".
Certainly it is important for children to be able to formulate goals,
develop strategies to reach those goals, and then carry those strategies
out. Both television and computers, with their ability to deliver, with
minimal or no effort, canned results which are based on the thought,
imagination and effort of someone other than the child, would seem to be
directly contrary to the development of such skills, however.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
Peggy Fieland
>kids' homework. I opined that my kid would have trouble, a la
>"Gee, I'm sorry, Miss Gefultefish, but I couldn't do this
>assignment. Daddy's VAX doesn't have Basic"
Along these lines, Mike, 12, was printing some homework off
the other morning when our printer ran out of ink. Rather
than read the manual and take the time to change the cartridge,
which would have caused him to miss the bus, he wrote his
assignment out onto a diskette and took it to school, where
he printed it off on the computer in his classroom.
When I was in school, the only computers that we knew
about were those giant ones in science fiction movies.
You know, the ones with all those tape drives...
Peggy
Ale Terlevich
> In article <390u25$k...@news.bu.edu>, est...@bu.edu (Erika Stokes) wrote:
>
> > Lefty Redux (d...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >
> > : >I'm curious...have the people who've banned TV, banned
> > : >computer games from their house also?
> >
> > : You bet. Those went _first_.
> >
> > What kind of computer games did you ban? Was it just an across the
> > board ban? If so have you considered that there are a great deal
> > of educational computer games out there? What about "Wheel of Fortune"
> > or any of the other shareware games that you can buy for around $10?
> > Even some of the games that do not seem to be educational are if you
> > did deeply enough. Some games like "Decathalon" involve the player's
> > ability to judge what angle to throw things like javelins at and
> > when to release them for the best score. Maybe you shoudl reconsider.
>
> Just as I don't believe that it's appropriate for a six-year-old to be
> watching TV, I don't feel it's appropriate for one to be using a computer.
> Children of that age really need to have _all_ their senses stimulated;
> they will get the most benefit out of _real_ things. When our child is
> older, there will certainly be occasions to use both television and
> computers in a reasonable and controlled way.
But a computer *is* a real thing, it's just a different way of doing things!
> I can't imagine that there's anything in the way of "educational" software
> that couldn't be done at least as effectively without a computer, given a
> little commitment, a little imagination and a little effort.
Is this a good reason for banning them? And anyway, I couldn't disagree with
you more, especially nowadays with the power of computers and the programs they
run getting ever greater.
>
> Why on earth would a child need to use a computer to learn how to throw
> something? Is there some advantage to a more-or-less accurate simulation
> of throwing something over actually _giving_ _the_ _child_ _something_ _to_
> _throw_ that I'm somehow failing to see?
Now that's a bit of a ridiculous argument. How many children do you know who
learned to throw on a computer? Just because *you* can't think of things a child
can learn better on a computer than off one it doesn't mean there aren't any. How
about learning how to use a computer for instance?
> I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
> allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
> that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
> transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
> with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
Unless of course you start off with an image and let the child distort it and tear
it appart with an image manipulation package. I'd like to see you do that with
paintbrushes and pens.
You just don't seem to understand that computers aren't trying to copy other things.
They're different, and have hundreds of different uses that just can't be recreated
without them. Children can be encouraged to read with flashing lights, sounds and moving
pictures. Computers are a totaly enabling medium, the only people who resist them are
those who don't really understand them.
It must also be said that some of the games you can get are a marvel to watch. They
have very creative and artistic graphics and some even have good music too.
Ale.
NORMAN CARVER
In article <CyqzF...@world.std.com>
pne...@world.std.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
NORMAN CARVER (car...@themis.cs.umass.edu) wrote:
: ...
: than anything else. For those of us that are a certain age,
: being introduced to computers earlier simply wasn't an option
: since computers were not widely available.
As one of those accidents, I would note that when I went to
UMass there was no undergraduate C.S. program (there WAS a graduate
program, oddly) - so I took some graduate courses and was
otherwise self-taught. What I'm saying is that someone who's
motivated and curious will pursue that interest, and I'm not
convinced that the others *need* to become computer programmers.
Hey, you think that research-oriented professors wanted to
spend their time teaching undergrads? :)
Actually, I think that some turf wars with ECE/engineering
played a part in that situation.
: Having taught introductory computer courses to college-level
: students (that had had little/no prior computer exposure), I will
: tell you that some immediately "get it," but many do not. Perhaps
: earlier exposure to the basic concepts involved in programming
: a computer would have helped these students.
"Perhaps". And perhaps not. But while the jury is still out
on that topic, and on the question of whether it matters if
all students "get" computer programming, I don't see why we
keep making parents feel guilty over whether their kids
have computers. (Especially when there are so much BETTER
things to make them feel guilty over - like letting
their kids GET programmed by Power rangers ads on TV!
8-) 8-) 8-) )
It certainly is true that people who are motivated and curious
will pursue an interest. One issue for parents of the current
generation is whether those that end up having an interest in computers
but didn't get early exposure will be competitive with those that did
get early exposure. It's kind of hard to judge which children
computers are going to be important to years down the road. I think
that's why parents worry. I know I would hate to be a college freshman
without any computer exposure that suddenly found his real interest
was computers, but also found that he was competing against many equally
talented students that had had many years' experience with computers.
I totally agree that we don't now know the answers to most of these
questions (though I expect that some will begin to be answered in the
next several years). Thus, parents are left to ponder the best course
of action with little hard information to go on.
[deleted]
---peter
Norman Carver
Lefty Redux
>In article 311094...@lefty.apple.com, le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>
>> Just as I don't believe that it's appropriate for a six-year-old to be
>> watching TV, I don't feel it's appropriate for one to be using a computer.
>> Children of that age really need to have _all_ their senses stimulated;
>> they will get the most benefit out of _real_ things. When our child is
>> older, there will certainly be occasions to use both television and
>> computers in a reasonable and controlled way.
>
> But a computer *is* a real thing, it's just a different way of doing things!
I'm sorry -- do you see no distinction between the image of a flower
generated by the interaction of a beam of electrons and the phosphors
on the front of a cathode ray tube and a _real_ flower?
As I've said, I beleive that young children need to be using all of
their senses, not just their eyes and one hand. They will learn the
most from the real world, real flowers, real animals, real brushes,
real blocks, real paints, real clay. Computers are a very, very poor
substitute for these things.
>> I can't imagine that there's anything in the way of "educational" software
>> that couldn't be done at least as effectively without a computer, given a
>> little commitment, a little imagination and a little effort.
>
> Is this a good reason for banning them? And anyway, I couldn't disagree with
>you more, especially nowadays with the power of computers and the programs they
>run getting ever greater.
It is, in my view, a good reason for not relying on them as
"educational tools" for young children. As far as "the power of
computers and the programs they run getting ever greater" can you give
some _specific_ examples?
To be more specific about what I meant, consider some of the popular
"educational software", such as "Reader Rabbit", for instance. It
boils down to nothing more than a set of automatic flashcards, the
sort of thing that could be produced with a stack of 3 by 5 cards and
a magic marker in thirty minutes time. What does the computer add to
this? When the child gives a correct answer, an animated rabbit does
a little dance!
Wow.
It seems to me that the main value the computer is adding here is
freeing up an adult from the necessity of having to interact with the
child. Not a great benefit, as far as I can see.
>> Why on earth would a child need to use a computer to learn how to throw
>> something? Is there some advantage to a more-or-less accurate simulation
>> of throwing something over actually _giving_ _the_ _child_ _something_ _to_
>> _throw_ that I'm somehow failing to see?
>
> Now that's a bit of a ridiculous argument. How many children do you know who
>learned to throw on a computer? Just because *you* can't think of things a child
>can learn better on a computer than off one it doesn't mean there aren't any. How
>about learning how to use a computer for instance?
This was the example that was given by another contributor to this
discussion, not by me. I was responding to it. If you can think of
things that a child can learn better through the use of a computer,
please name them. No, "learning how to use a computer" doesn't count:
that's simply begging the question. I could as easily defend giving
hypodermic syringes to children by pointing out that they couldn't
learn to use a syringe without one.
>> I frequently hear, for instance, "paint" programs cited as a good reason to
>> allow a child to use a computer. I can't agree. There's really nothing
>> that I can see that a child can learn from a paint program that's
>> transferable in a meaningful way to the activity of actually _painting_
>> with watercolors and brushes. The converse, however, is not true.
>
> Unless of course you start off with an image and let the child distort it and tear
>it appart with an image manipulation package. I'd like to see you do that with
>paintbrushes and pens.
Of course, you can't at least not directly. The question is, what's
the real _value_? I don't hand my six-year-old the car keys because
she can't go 80 miles an hour without them. Is there some real value
to a six-year-old in using an image manipulation package, versus
simply using watercolors or papier mache or any of an huge number of
things that kids can learn from _without_ a computer? The idea that a
child who is just beginning to draw flowers and trees, lambs and
people will get significant value out of an "image manipulation
package" is really pretty silly. Have you _looked_ at six year olds'
drawings? Six year olds _are_ "image manipulation packages".
> You just don't seem to understand that computers aren't trying to copy other things.
>They're different, and have hundreds of different uses that just can't be recreated
>without them. Children can be encouraged to read with flashing lights, sounds and moving
>pictures. Computers are a totaly enabling medium, the only people who resist them are
>those who don't really understand them.
Children can be encouraged to have a thirty second attention span with
flashing lights, sounds and moving pictures. Children can be left in
a position where they're unwilling to read _without_ the lights,
sounds and pictures. Children who are exposed to reading and writing
in a reasonable way don't usually _need_ to be encouraged to read:
they _want_ to.
As far as "those who don't really understand them", that's an ignorant
and presumptuous statement. I've worked with computers professionally
for two decades. My views have nothing to do with an inability to
understand computers, I assure you.
There certainly are hundreds of things that can't be done without
computers. This doesn't really support an argument that "computers
are valuable to young children". There are hundreds of things that
can't be done without high explosives; there are hundreds of things
that can't be done without five-minute epoxy. And there are thousands
of things that can't be done _with_ computers.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] <le...@apple.com>, <d...@netcom.com>
Ebeth Jones
One reason that I can see for letting young kids play on the
computer is help them learn that computers are not "scary". Take
a look at an older person being introduced to a computer for the
first time - "what if I break it?" "I'll never be able to use
that dang thing, its just too complex". They just don't seem to
be able to comprehend that a computer is just a machine, a tool,
not something conjured up thru sorcery. Since younger kids tend
to be fearless about trying out new things, and also don't generally
have any fear of looking like an idiot by displaying their ignorance
about something, it seems like childhood is really the ideal time
to be introduced to a computer. In this day and age, these kids
are not going to be allowed to grow up and get away with not using
computers, the way a lot of older folks are today. (examples being
the elderly secretaries where I work - they flatly refuse to even
consider using the computer, and stick to their old selectric
typewriters).
--
Elizabeth Jones E-MAIL: baj...@nvl.army.mil
"A home without a cat, and a well-fed, well-petted, and properly revered cat,
may be a perfect home, *perhaps*, but how can it prove its title?" Mark Twain