4 ms·

That's an interesting point of view. What led you to that perspective? As for our kids, we found that the TV is amazingly effective at teaching them, notably

by Poiesis 16y ago

That's an interesting point of view. What led you to that perspective? As for our kids, we found that the TV is amazingly effective at teaching them, notably for reading skills. That catchy "The B says 'Buh'" song (and its 25 friends) was something that totally helped them remember how to sound out words. Our eight year old reads like a demon now, and the five year old is a beginning reader (he started slower than his older brother, but he's doing fine). The current three year old is recognizing letters and clearly interested in reading on her own. It's not like we don't read to them or teach them, too--but it's quite obvious to us that the TV is scarily effective at getting messages across. If you think about it, that's what it's designed to do. We just choose to use it primarily for good and limit the undesirable effects. Oh, and you should totally see my daughter figure out tangram puzzles on the iphone/ipod. She rocks at it. Yeah, they like to do stuff that's not challenging, too (come to think of it, I do too sometimes!). But I'm the parent: I get a say into how this stuff is used, and I'm going to use every tool that I can.

dools 16y ago
For me, it comes down to a matter of needs. I was reading and writing before I went to school and it wasn't the result of educational software (actually my parents used the Glenn Doman method). So I don't need educational software or toys - I can teach my child reading, writing, speaking and basic maths on my own. This extends quite naturally to conversations about sugar and, later on, alcohol. Children don't need sugary foods and sweets, there is absolutely no advantage in them, so why would I feed them to my child? When she's old enough to want a mobile phone because all the other kids have them and they're cool, the question is "why do you need a mobile phone?". Just because everyone else has them is not an acceptable reason. Computers are designed to be learned, and it's easy to learn how to use a computer (especially something that's basically designed for the "normals" like the iPad). Hell when computers first came out plenty of non-technical professionals learned to use them in a very short period of time. I don't think there's any advantage, educational or otherwise, in exposing my daughter to that type of technology early on, so why would I? Simply because it's there? I harbour certain reservations to do with development of imagination and fostering an early screen addiction (just the same as I'm concerned about sugar and alcohol addiction) that come into play here - but those aren't things that I can point at and conclusively say "if my daughter uses this, she'll be an obese xbox obsessed couch potato", but the reasoning of minimalist parenting and focusing on needs rather than wants I think builds a healthier child.
- cabacon 16y ago
  I just don't buy into the "I didn't need X, so I will not provide X" argument. It is clear that toddler iphone apps are not required for learning. That doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. And, even if they're merely neutral w/r/t learning, the kids demonstrably love playing with them. The "love playing with them" seems to apply to sweets too. Kids love sweets. I love sweets. They're not the healthy part of the diet, but that's why they're intake-limited, not unmetered. Mobile phones are useful too. When I was a kid, I was terrible about phoning home to let them know whose house I was playing at. Knowing that a kid has a mobile phone that you can reach them on is awesome. The other (cool?) stuff can just be a fringe perk for the kid. So, I dunno. The alternative to minimalism isn't maximalism. Things like access to highly-attractive, disproportionately rewarding relative to their merits activities can be rationed. But I just don't see not letting a kid play with things that they think are awesome just because if they were to overdo it makes it harmful. Indeed, the concept of self-metering is huge. I've never seen kids explode quite so spectacularly as when they are released from a restrictive regime into an environment where they have not learned the habits of self control.

by Poiesis 16y ago

dools 16y ago

For me, it comes down to a matter of needs. I was reading and writing before I went to school and it wasn't the result of educational software (actually my parents used the Glenn Doman method). So I don't need educational software or toys - I can teach my child reading, writing, speaking and basic maths on my own. This extends quite naturally to conversations about sugar and, later on, alcohol. Children don't need sugary foods and sweets, there is absolutely no advantage in them, so why would I feed them to my child? When she's old enough to want a mobile phone because all the other kids have them and they're cool, the question is "why do you need a mobile phone?". Just because everyone else has them is not an acceptable reason. Computers are designed to be learned, and it's easy to learn how to use a computer (especially something that's basically designed for the "normals" like the iPad). Hell when computers first came out plenty of non-technical professionals learned to use them in a very short period of time. I don't think there's any advantage, educational or otherwise, in exposing my daughter to that type of technology early on, so why would I? Simply because it's there? I harbour certain reservations to do with development of imagination and fostering an early screen addiction (just the same as I'm concerned about sugar and alcohol addiction) that come into play here - but those aren't things that I can point at and conclusively say "if my daughter uses this, she'll be an obese xbox obsessed couch potato", but the reasoning of minimalist parenting and focusing on needs rather than wants I think builds a healthier child.

cabacon 16y ago
I just don't buy into the "I didn't need X, so I will not provide X" argument. It is clear that toddler iphone apps are not required for learning. That doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do. And, even if they're merely neutral w/r/t learning, the kids demonstrably love playing with them. The "love playing with them" seems to apply to sweets too. Kids love sweets. I love sweets. They're not the healthy part of the diet, but that's why they're intake-limited, not unmetered. Mobile phones are useful too. When I was a kid, I was terrible about phoning home to let them know whose house I was playing at. Knowing that a kid has a mobile phone that you can reach them on is awesome. The other (cool?) stuff can just be a fringe perk for the kid. So, I dunno. The alternative to minimalism isn't maximalism. Things like access to highly-attractive, disproportionately rewarding relative to their merits activities can be rationed. But I just don't see not letting a kid play with things that they think are awesome just because if they were to overdo it makes it harmful. Indeed, the concept of self-metering is huge. I've never seen kids explode quite so spectacularly as when they are released from a restrictive regime into an environment where they have not learned the habits of self control.