[Slightly OT] age appropiate use of tools
Wow, this got heated. As an aside, I'd adore being Ben
and Ariannah's children :)
Ron, I find it curious you're discussing developmental
appropiateness and have yet my reply has gone entirely
answered. I'll go through some of your points first.
Firstly, a lot of what you're basing your opinion on
is circumstantial evidence that does little to prove
who it is for children, and simply illustrates how it
was for you. Understanding that you were likely born
prior to 1980, probably even prior to 1970, you can
understand that I think the things which children face
when they're raised now, we're mostly talking about
children who have been born 1995 or more recently, are
going to be considerably different, as is what
knowledge is expected of them at different
developmental stages.
Sam wrote: For another, depending upon /what/ the
child has experience with, it can really help out with
logic and problem solving. Heck, it can even help
teach creativity.
To which you, Rob, replied: So do coloring books,
crayons, toy soldiers, books, etc. Basically,
almost everything except TV.
I'm interested in why you feel that, because stimulus
can be gained from the mediums you listed, it
shouldn't also be gained from other tools, such as the
computer.
You think no one that gives code/time into Linux had
computers at a young age? That's just blatently false.
You said: "Thus, early exposure to computer technology
is *not* necessary for someone to go on later and
become a programmer." I don't believe that Ben, Sam,
I, nor anyone else has said that's the case. I hadn't
touched a computer until 1996, and yet I am still a
perfectly proffecient graphic artist. I am yet to see
how I can rationalise that into thinking I should
raise my child deprived of TuxPaint.
I find it highly ironic that you, Ron, said: "Those of
us who are curious, or interested in
technology/science
(yes, there were even people like that before 1976)
will be drawn to "a deeper understanding of" computers
no matter how old we are." And that is /absolutely/
true of children born more recently than 1995, as
well, and regardless of how you attempt to shelter
your children, that will be true of them. The idea
that one can prevent children from something they are
interested in is not only abhorent, but fatally
flawed. It's similar to the religious right thinking
that they can persuade their children to wait for
marriage to have sex by a complete and utter lack of
education regarding it. Lack of information, in
anything, will not lead to blissful ignorance, but a
dangerous niaviety that's likely to get children in
exactly the places we don't want them to be. So many
people complain that Unix-derived systems are
unfriendly and that they use Windows because it's
easier and more intuitive. I'd rather raise my child
with an early understanding so they work easily within
a shell prompt, than have them exposed to Windows-only
platforms when they've entered school, or the
workforce, and resign themselves to the
Windows-dominated world. (Though, not likely with our
children, as Riordon is currently homeschooled. We're
far too radical for mainstream schooling.)
TV needn't be a babysitter; how it's used is entirely
dependant on the parent. Parent's who are lazy and
don't monitor their children's tv viewing are no
better than parent's who are too lazy to monitor their
children's tv viewing and thus do away with it
entirely. either way you shake it, it's still lazy
parenting.
"Ian, my son, complained to me that all the other kids
know how to read better than he does. I'm not
worried, though, since he's only 5, and is progressing
well." Do you find that you're overconcerned with your
son's learning aquisition skills? You needn't worry
about his inability to read, even if it were a
complete inability, until he was a bit older. I would
personally worry that your child is currently grading
and marking his own progress based on the skills of
others. That's a dangerous habit to get into that we
suffer from academically as students, and emotionally
as adults.
You said to Thomas, that when you're children are
older hat they'll still need Linux-based systems. When
you're children are older, do you honestly believe
that they will not longer need to be running and
jumping, playing with toys, colouring, cutting, riding
bike/scooter, etc? Do you believe that YOU, as an
adult, no longer need to be running and jumping,
playing with toys, colouring, cutting, riding
bike/scooter, etc? Perhaps that's why obesity is so
common in Americans.
You seem to think, ron, that it is a very black or
white issue, where children are either pushed to focus
on academia, or on physicalness. Our household, we
don't buy into gender stereotypes, or perconceived
notions of those sorts. Children are children with
their own desires and interests and feed into those as
much as we can. We introduce them to other things, but
to make things balanced by default means that we don't
prohibitively exclude them from any one thing,
including the computer. The idea that someone can hope
to give their children a well-balanced education but
expressly excluding something from it is, aside from
abhorent, an alien concept and case of purely unlogical.
________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
Reply to: