|
0 members (),
273
guests, and
11
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
Good point. I guess I need to explain what I meant. When my kids got interested in something, it was never in moderation. When the little one decided dinosaurs were his passion, it was dinosaurs all day every day - everywhere. We were dinosaurs in the car, in the park, during supper, and in all forms of play. They sound like fun kids. My take is that parenting preschoolers is just really hard work. Gifted or not, they can be absolutely exhausting to be around, particularly if they are very physical active or they are kids who push boundaries. I'm not sure that either of those characteristics are exclusive to gifted kids. My opinion is likely different from many here. I think the single best reason to use screens is as a babysitter. If it gets a parent a desperately needed break that's of more value than believing it is what makes kids creative or able to think logically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457 |
I don't understand what you are saying. What would be inconvenient or difficult to admit? That coloring books "have anything to do with art", despite the fact that they involve filling out the outlines of art made by others-- and skipping the ability to create art of one's own. Why not draw one's own art and color it? It is an obvious advantage in this discussion for you to try to distance (or as lawyers say, "distinguish") the two. I'm just in essence saying, "I see what you did there". It's completely obvious that coloring in someone else's art has something to do with art, despite the fact that it's imaginationally completely passive instead of involving active creation (that's my point, actually). I'd say for us coloring pages or coloring books were waiting for the entree to arrive at a restaurant. Maybe three hours a year? I looked back at the previous discussion on coloring, and see I've partly confused you with PoppaRex, who was much more forceful in advocating coloring, so I'm sorry. I certainly think anything can be overdone, and three hours a year of just about anything would be seen as moderation. Rules and strategic play have existed for generations before computers. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers childhood play involving endless hours of rule creation and negotiation. ... which isn't the same as playing a strategy game, some of which are on computers today. When they are on computers, they can offer greater richness of detail; but in general playing a strategy game on the computer is no more harmful in terms of curbing creativity than, say, playing a game of chess. And here you're engaging in the same sort of fallacy as before (i.e. "Just because computers didn't exist in the past, yet children existed, there is nothing new and positive about playing on computers today"). Screens aren't the same as play in real life. They don't involve using gross motor skills, feeling the weight of objects, experiencing the size of objects in real space, having the sensory experience of objects, interacting and negotiating with real people - reading their facial expressions, etc. You're correct, those are actual differences between playing with a simulated environment and playing with real objects and people. The fact that they are different does not mean that computers offer no advantages. A child can practice flying a plane with software today, actually feel what it might feel like to look out of the cockpit (even engage with an enemy aircraft), etc., whereas almost no one ever gets that chance in the real world; that's just an example. I've provided others. It is odd to me to try to parse it out this way. My experience of kid play both as a parent and as a child is that it involved all of these - imagination, strategy, problem solving, conflict, cooperation, creativity. It is all there in kid play at least in kids who know how to play - something that is disappearing for some kids with more screens. Playing a game on a computer, or playing with a software model, doesn't rule out non-computer-based play, and offers things that non-computer-based play does not. And you still haven't explained how playing a computer strategy game stunts creativity any more than playing a game of chess-- would it be ruling out the ability to imagine a knight actually forking a king and queen at once?  I don't think the research suggests that most kids are on screens three hours a year, more like what five or six hours a day... Of course we know that the real issue is that for most kids it isn't a very rare experience but hours and hours each week. I don't personally let my kids on the computer that much. In fact, they didn't use them at all today. I agree that the main issue is that computers are seductive and can be passivating in the extreme, and so unchecked computer use could be bad for kids. I don't see that all computer play unavoidably is bad for children's imagination. I also don't think you've managed to distinguish playing a computer strategy game from playing a board game, etc. I'm with you more on the video time. I do sometimes worry about the amount of screen time we allow the kids there, and have cut back on TV to the point that they are usually allowed one PBS show in the morning while getting ready for school. I continue to let them watch movies, but I'd probably cut that way back if, say, DS6's reading was flagging (it's increasing). With DS2 some of the screen time has actually helped him, for example early on I showed him "Baby Babble" DVDs to help get him vocalizing more (they worked) and the Leapfrog Letter Factory seems to have helped him memorize his letter facts better even than Starfall and reading.
Striving to increase my rate of flow, and fight forum gloopiness. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
It is an obvious advantage in this discussion for you to try to distance (or as lawyers say, "distinguish") the two. I'm just in essence saying, "I see what you did there". It's completely obvious that coloring in someone else's art has something to do with art, despite the fact that it's imaginationally completely passive instead of involving active creation (that's my point, actually). Sorry, I'm totally confused. Filling in line drawings on the back of a kids' placement is not art. It seems odd to me that anyone would believe it is producing art. It is a time wasting activity with potential fine motor benefits. Just like when the kid practices handwriting by copying down a sentence they aren't engaging in constructing a story. If the issue is that they are being exposed to unattractive versions of art as a consumer I wonder how you reconcile that with having the child consume any kind of kid media, like Leapfrog that you mentioned, that is full of pretty poorly done unattractive art. Maybe three hours a year? I looked back at the previous discussion on coloring, and see I've partly confused you with PoppaRex, who was much more forceful in advocating coloring, so I'm sorry. [/quote] Okay, thanks. ... which isn't the same as playing a strategy game, some of which are on computers today. When they are on computers, they can offer greater richness of detail; but in general playing a strategy game on the computer is no more harmful in terms of curbing creativity than, say, playing a game of chess. And here you're engaging in the same sort of fallacy as before (i.e. "Just because computers didn't exist in the past, yet children existed, there is nothing new and positive about playing on computers today"). Kid play is full of incredible richness of detail, if you aren't seeing that in the play of kids you know that is a red flag. I've known kids with highly detailed self created games and worlds that have operated for years at a time. What's happening with the computer isn't just playing chess, but the illusion that the child is engaging in imagination when they are acting as a consumer of a world, story, and rules created by someone else. It is also acting devoid of an integrated sensory and motor experience. A child can practice flying a plane with software today, actually feel what it might feel like to look out of the cockpit (even engage with an enemy aircraft), etc., whereas almost no one ever gets that chance in the real world; that's just an example. I've provided others. They get to feel someone else's simulated version of certain aspects of that experience. That's not the same as their own imagined version, nor is it the same as the real experience. I believe your other examples were things like having a battle or building a city - both of these themes are pretty common ones in kid play. And you still haven't explained how playing a computer strategy game stunts creativity any more than playing a game of chess-- would it be ruling out the ability to imagine a night actually forking a king and queen at once? Chess is a good example. If you play on the computer you play by the rules of the computer and only the rules of the computer. When kids play with a IRL physical chess set they may play according to the traditional rules of the game. That's always an option. Or, they may conceive something entirely new - what happens if we incorporate Lego people with super powers, what happens if we add an element of chance through incorporating rock paper scissors or a dice roll, what happens if we add bowling as a new game mechanic, what happens if alter the movements of the queen, what happens if we change the rules to make it so our chess game is epic and runs for weeks at a time. This process involves strategy, social skills developed through negotiating with playmates, experiencing and working with gravity, motor skills, physical space, etc. This isn't to argue there is no value in playing chess against the computer. There's lots to be said for having an opponent at the right level always available. It is one experience though with a real chess set and playing offering a wealth of other experiences. It is good to know the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,457 |
Sorry, I'm totally confused. Filling in line drawings on the back of a kids' placement is not art. It seems odd to me that anyone would believe it is producing art. It is a time wasting activity with potential fine motor benefits. Just like when the kid practices handwriting by copying down a sentence they aren't engaging in constructing a story. I'm sorry you're confused. Coloring in someone else's art does indeed have something to do with art-- it's filling in or completing someone else's art, but subtracting out the chance for creative expression nearly completely. In a similar vein, doing touchups on Thomas Kinkade masterworks is undeniably art-related, but completely devoid of any artistic creative benefit. If the issue is that they are being exposed to unattractive versions of art as a consumer I wonder how you reconcile that with having the child consume any kind of kid media, like Leapfrog that you mentioned, that is full of pretty poorly done unattractive art. The issue is that they're doing an art activity that discourages creative outlet, beyond the choice of color for a certain region. Watching a Leapfrog video is not an art activity, it's a fact-memorization activity that involves the consumption of information. Let's not get silly. Kid play is full of incredible richness of detail No amount of imaginative kid play replicates the sort of detail I'm talking about, which specifically deals with rule-based play in a strategy game. Playing with dolls is not chess, and playing with plastic army men is not a full-on battle simulation with real working parts. Playing a battle simulation of an actual WW II battle is simply different by design from freeform play with figurines (it's intended to heighten the realism available), and any comparison that decries the loss of imaginative possibilities is intentionally missing the point. What's happening with the computer isn't just playing chess, but the illusion that the child is engaging in imagination when they are acting as a consumer of a world, story, and rules created by someone else. There's no illusion. I'm astounded that you keep trying to claim that they are one and the same. I never claimed that. However, one could imagine that one is a commander of a real-world army when one is commanding a simulated army, no less than one could engage in the same fantasy while playing with molded motionless plastic soldiers. ETA: I think that maybe what is rankling with you is that you feel that my statement was overreaching before, in that the aspect of freeform play is partly discarded in a simulation in exchange for the imposition of more rules, so in your opinion it is much different and an important part is lost. I do feel that they are different, and I thought that this was understood: one does allow more scope for imagination; the other allows more scope for strategy and a more realistic experience of actually controlling soldiers in a real battle, despite the loss of the ability for tanks to teleport at will and other physically impossible feats, for superhuman abilities to save the day, space aliens to land and intervene, etc. (This is why before computers, detailed battle simulations with small figurines were created-- which kids often love.)
So, if you like, I will modify my previous statement from "To me, that doesn't seem much different from using a set of army men" to "To me, that doesn't seem much different from using a set of army men to conduct realistic battles".
Let's not argue as if I am advocating discarding free play (my son has a ginormous set of plastic army men, complete with plastic tanks, helicopters, concertina wire, etc. and plays with them too). The burden is on you to show that playing with a simulation is bad; I think that you can show no proof, any more than you can prove that playing chess is bad, though even more constrained. If I were to use your style of reasoning above, I'd be inserting a statement or question here suggesting that by your logic, we can't expose our children to any sort of story or media created by another, due to the risk that they'd just be acting as a "consumer of a world". It is also acting devoid of an integrated sensory and motor experience. This doesn't hold water. Does one not reap the benefits of playing chess when one uses a board displayed on a computer screen, instead of holding the pieces in one's hand? (If you have a Windows machine with Windows 7, the game "Chess Titans" lets you do just this, for example. You can play against a human on the screen.) But what of the terrible loss of the "integrated sensory and motor experience"? See, the main problem with the set of fallacies you're stubbornly trying to present is that you are suggesting without any foundation that just because something is on a computer, it's bound to be bad. And you will continue to fail as long as you so badly overstate the case. A child can practice flying a plane with software today, actually feel what it might feel like to look out of the cockpit (even engage with an enemy aircraft), etc., whereas almost no one ever gets that chance in the real world; that's just an example. I've provided others. ... and there are scads of others. In fact, a child studying WW II can engage in a full-fledged battle recreation where they're right in the thick of the action. Your baseless argument against simulation just doesn't make sense because it's, well, baseless. Mathematicians and scientists use simulations all the time because they're useful learning tools. You haven't presented any evidence that playing with simulations (or any other strategy games) is bad. You haven't presented any evidence that the loss of an "integrated experience", exchanging it for the "integrated experience" of computer use, is bad. Here's another thing that can't be replicated outside of a computer: hypertext. Computers indisputably offer opportunities that can't be duplicated otherwise for learning because of the enhanced browsing and multimedia presentation options. How about learning about the forementioned WW II with an interactive atlas that lets one drill down into fine detail at each step of the war? What about using an interactive model of the human body? Chess is a good example. If you play on the computer you play by the rules of the computer and only the rules of the computer. When kids play with a IRL physical chess set they may play according to the traditional rules of the game. That's always an option. Or, they may conceive something entirely new - what happens if we incorporate Lego people with super powers, what happens if we add an element of chance through incorporating rock paper scissors or a dice roll, what happens if we add bowling as a new game mechanic, what happens if alter the movements of the queen, what happens if we change the rules to make it so our chess game is epic and runs for weeks at a time. Uh oh. We'd better recommend that people have their children avoid playing with the standard rules of chess-- and better stay away from those incredibly limiting chess tournaments! 
Striving to increase my rate of flow, and fight forum gloopiness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 868
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 868 |
Your baseless argument against simulation just doesn't make sense because it's, well, baseless. Mathematicians and scientists use simulations all the time because they're useful learning tools. You haven't presented any evidence that playing with simulations (or any other strategy games) is bad. You haven't presented any evidence that the loss of an "integrated experience", exchanging it for the "integrated experience" of computer use, is bad. While I have very much enjoyed this lively discussion and appreciate the original poster's tolerance of our ramblings here, the tone has changed from discussing varying points of view to personal and confrontational, so I'm bowing out of this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 687 |
Kid play is full of incredible richness of detail No amount of imaginative kid play replicates the sort of detail I'm talking about, which specifically deals with rule-based play in a strategy game. Playing with dolls is not chess, and playing with plastic army men is not a full-on battle simulation with real working parts. Playing a battle simulation of an actual WW II battle is simply different by design from freeform play with figurines (it's intended to heighten the realism available), and any comparison that decries the loss of imaginative possibilities is intentionally missing the point.[/quote] I agree it is different. I expect a kid is able to visualize and create detail. If kids aren't able to do that, play isn't going to be very complex, but I see that as a flag something is wrong. Imagining your own world and creating your own reality is different than being the consumer of the reality someone else has created. Even if your goal is a recreation of a historical even working from maps or written accounts to be able to visualize in your head and create your own reproduction, that requires a different kind of imagination than pointing and shooting. ETA: I think that maybe what is rankling with you is that you feel that my statement was overreaching before, in that the aspect of freeform play is partly discarded in a simulation in exchange for the imposition of more rules, so in your opinion it is much different and an important part is lost. I do feel that they are different, and I thought that this was understood: one does allow more scope for imagination; the other allows more scope for strategy and a more realistic experience of actually controlling soldiers in a real battle, despite the loss of the ability for tanks to teleport at will and other physically impossible feats, for superhuman abilities to save the day, space aliens to land and intervene, etc. I'm sure some kids are all about fantasy and some all about strategy and some about a mix. Some prefer historically accurate battles and some do not. I can't see that imaginative play is lacking in strategy because I've seen very complex, strategic play. To create your own strategic play requires the ability to think through different game mechanics and make experiments about what works and what doesn't. Sure, in the real life game you might teleport or bring in aliens but you are thinking of it and doing it. The reality is that yes in a computer game you can kill yourself and press start again. The difference with real life games is you need to use imagination and social skills instead of just pressing a button. If I were to use your style of reasoning above, I'd be inserting a statement or question here suggesting that by your logic, we can't expose our children to any sort of story or media created by another, due to the risk that they'd just be acting as a "consumer of a world". I haven't seen kids lose imagination or creation from reading or listening to stories, I have seen it from too much screens. Not all of them, but a lot of them, yes. I'm certainly not against all uses of computers. Not sure where that leap is coming from. It is also acting devoid of an integrated sensory and motor experience. This doesn't hold water. Does one not reap the benefits of playing chess when one uses a board displayed on a computer screen, instead of holding the pieces in one's hand? We just won't see eye to eye. I love a pretty wood chess set with nice weighted pieces that feel good in the hand. It is a sensory experience. As I said chess software can be good in the way of providing a ready opponent at a controlled level of difficulty. We'd better recommend that people have their children avoid playing with the standard rules of chess-- and better stay away from those incredibly limiting chess tournaments! As I clearly stated, the real chess set offers the option to play standard chess and so much more. If kids want to play chess on the computer a lot that's great, however I'd also suggest getting them out to play in real clubs and tournaments though. Real kids are more unpredictable than computer software and require a set of skills you don't need on the computer including reading body language - and learning to lose gracefully and keep your cool.
Last edited by passthepotatoes; 01/29/12 06:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
I'm all backwards anyway. �I think pixels are fine for mindless entertainment and that mindlessness is fine. Funny thing is, I heard a similar argument against early organized education, don't teach preschoolers phonics or your kid will be a skin covered robot. �And "you'll destroy your kid's creativity by giving him drawing lessons before he has time to develop his own style". � * I have to agree that the statistics are taken of children and their screen time are probably involving children whose parents don't go above and beyond for their education like many posters here. �Also, we're not going to get this perfect. Yes, they are totally different from free-form art. �They're coloring in someone else's art instead of creating art. �In comparison, it's hard to understand how using simulated soldiers some of the time, instead of molded plastic ones, is supposed to be so harmful to imagination. My, how I love the way folks in this forum compare stuff to stuff, even if we disagree about the stuffs relationship. �Most folks just don't get it unless there's a premade phrase that compares the two objects they don't seem to cross-reference. �But folks here do it naturally, compare stuff to stuff automatically. �Yay! I noticed that �with small children who watch a lot of television it structured their imagination much more than books do. Kids being Dora or the cars from cars. It's just not been my experience that kids read Olivia and then incorporate her into imaginary play the way kids who just saw her on tv did.�
DeHe (mommy confession- I sneaked the Olivia book into the trash because the writing was so poor compared to other children's books we have. �But I think Olivia the tv show is cute). �� *and yet adult artists say that great art comes from knowing the rules and then deciding on when to break them� And the HWT program says when your child has learned to form neat correct letters then, by all means, let them embellish flourishments to make their own style, but don't confuse untrained sloppiness for one's own style. � ** does anybody know about those wild claims that cellphones microwave your brains slowly and since there's no nerve endings there to feel it, blah blah blah... So don't give your phone to your two year old? Just somebody tell me if that's true or not because I think I really do love my iPhone.
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,040
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,040 |
I
** does anybody know about those wild claims that cellphones microwave your brains slowly and since there's no nerve endings there to feel it, blah blah blah... So don't give your phone to your two year old? Just somebody tell me if that's true or not because I think I really do love my iPhone. Cellphones do heat up brain tissue,and cause increased brain metabolism near the site of heating. You can learn more here: cellphones and cancer risk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Many of my concerns about video games relate to the pacing and potential affects on the brain as well as acting as a captivating draw that may prevent a child from learning to deal with boredom or engage in play that requires more skill areas such as sensory, motor skills, etc. Yes, this is where I am, too. I also agree that limited screentime is fine in its place as a break for the parents or as lightweight enjoyment. I do think it's possible to learn from some educational stuff, and some films are thematically and visually rich, but generally I don't count on it on to do any of that, though it might a little. I also have exposed my kids to some popular stuff purely in the name of social capital. (Which reminds me that DD is probably ready to watch Star Wars by now.) I also have to agree about kids who do not know how to play. I have had kids come over to my house and seem not to know what to do in our backyard, which has a treehouse, swing and trapeze, tons of cool outdoor toys, sand area, chickens, and so on. They wander around blankly for a bit, swing for a few minutes, and come inside and ask to watch TV or play Wii (we do have a Wii, which spends a lot of time sitting). Oh, they do usually like the bikes and scooters, though--I notice those are still popular with almost every kid. My kids drive me crazy a lot and are challenging little critters, but one thing they do not do is say they are bored or rely solely on me for entertainment. It could certainly be personality, but I have very deliberately cultivated this as much as I possibly can. There is so much evidence--mountains of it, really--about the congitive and socioemotional benefits of free, unstructured play. We have very little showing benefits for screen activities. There may BE benefits, but right now there sure isn't a consensus.
Last edited by ultramarina; 01/30/12 07:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Count me among the advocates for screens here. And the reason I'm confident I'm not having the same effect on my child as has been documented in large studies is because they're not studying my kid. If DD7 spent 7-8 hours in front of a screen and 20 minutes reading each day, she'd be MISERABLE. It's a rare day that she spends more than 2 hours in a day in front of a screen of any kind. My DD spent maybe a total of 4.5 hours of combined time in front of a screen from Friday - Sunday, and a good portion of that was spent on a homework assignment she didn't have to do on a computer, but she chose to anyway.
In fact, I'm guilty of redirecting her from a book to a screen this past weekend. I came home from work Friday and found her settled on the couch with a book she had picked up at our last library sale. She wanted to talk about what she was reading, because she found it so fascinating, and she showed me how it was talking about how crayons are made in the factory. I told her about the show "How It's Made," she expressed an interest, and I pulled up the TV menus to set a recording... only to find out there was some kind of marathon running right then.
That show accounted for nearly two hours of that 4.5 hour figure I presented, though not all on the same day. The overwhelming bulk of her weekend was spent in unstructured play time with her peers... with a few hours of unstructured play time with her daddy mixed in.
So yeah, I reject the findings of the Kaiser Permanente study as having anything to do with my kid, because how the AVERAGE kid consumes these things is not how my DD does it. My kid is exceptional, zero surprises there. I do not limit her screen time because she has displayed no desire to abuse it.
Furthermore, I reject false dichotomies as false. My kid has unstructured play time, my kid experiences multimedia, and she enjoys the benefits of both.
Sure, handling a well-crafted chess board is a pleasant sensory experience. You know what else is a pleasant sensory experience? A beautifully-rendered chess board in which the rook morphs into a rock troll, thuds his way to the queen, hoists her up, and stuffs her into his mouth. Then the bishop responding by strolling over, swinging his staff, and smashing the rock troll into a pile of bricks. Pretty soon you find yourself entertained by the various ways different pieces can destroy each other, and the game moves away from the structured pursuit of victory according to standard chess rules, and into the unstructured play of creating as much mayhem as possible. Try doing THAT with a well-crafted chess set, and you'll quickly discover how limiting real-life can be to the human imagination.
Of course, choosing one exclusively over the other would be a false dichotomy. They're both great, so enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
