5 ms·

I went through Waldorf education and although Rudolf Steiner is quite eccentric, one thing I think he was spot on about was regarding WHEN you introduce technol

by neom 2y ago

I went through Waldorf education and although Rudolf Steiner is quite eccentric, one thing I think he was spot on about was regarding WHEN you introduce technology. He believed that introducing technology or mechanized thinking too early in childhood would hinder imaginative, emotional, and spiritual development. He emphasized that children should engage primarily with natural materials, imaginative play, storytelling, artistic activities, and movement, as opposed to being exposed prematurely to mechanical devices or highly structured thinking, I seem to recall he recommended this till the age of 6. My parents did this with me, no screens till 6 (wasn't so hard as I grew up in the early 90s, but still, no TV). I notice too how much people love screens, that non-judgmental glow of mental stimulation, it's wonderful, however I do think it's easier to "switch off" when you spent the first period of your life fully tuned in to the natural world. I hope folks are able to do this for their kids, it seems it would be quite difficult with all the noise in the world. Given it was hard for mine during the era of CRT and 4 channels, I have empathy for parents of today.

soulofmischief 2y ago
I will counter this by saying that my time spent with screens before 6 was unimaginably critical for me. If I hadn't had it, I would have been trapped by the racist, religously zealous, backwoods mentality that gripped the rest of my family and the majority of the people I grew up with. I discovered video games at age 3 and it changed EVERYTHING. It completely opened my mind to abstract thought and, among other things, influenced me to teach myself to read at age 3. I was reading at a collegiate level by age five and discovered another passion, books. Again, propelled me out of an extremely anti-intellectual upbringing. I simply could not imagine where I would be without video games, visual arts or books. Screens are not the problem. Absent parenting is the problem. Not teaching children the power of these screens is the problem.
- f1shy 2y ago
  I second this motion. Technology is just a tool. It can be wisely used or not. Just forbidding it, is not wise in my opinion. You have to be careful to use it properly, or course. Also let me drop the thought here, that Rudolf Steiner, like Montesori and the like, shoot "this is good" "this is bad" based on "feeling" or intuition, or such. There were no extensive scientific studies behind it.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    The funny thing is that I remember the exact moment I fell in love with computers at 4. My grandmother cleaned houses and was often very late to pick me up from Headstart. So I would spend hours waiting, unsupervised, in a room with computer that had a giant note attached to the screen saying DO NOT TOUCH. >:) By 5, all I wanted was a computer. To me they represented and unending well of knowledge.
setr 2y ago
I’ve been theory crafting around video games for children on the opposing premise. I think fundamentally the divide is on the quality of content — most games have some value to extract, but many are designed to be played inefficiently, and require far more time investment than value extracted. Eg Minecraft, Roblox, CoD, Fortnite, Dota/LoL, the various mobile games clearly have some kind of value (mechanical skill, hand-eye coordination, creative modes, 3D space navigation / translation / rotation, numeric optimization, social interaction, etc), but they’re also designed as massive timesinks mostly through creative mode or multiplayer. Games like paper Mario, pikmin, star control 2, katamari damacy, lego titles, however are all children-playable but far more time efficient and importantly time-bounded for play. Even within timesink games there are higher quality options — you definitely get more, and faster, out of satisfactory / factorio than modded Minecraft. If you can push kids towards the higher quality, lower timesink games, I think it’s worth. Fail to do so and it’s definitely not. The same applies to TV, movies, books, etc. Any medium of entertainment have horrendous timesinks to avoid, and if you can do so, avoiding the medium altogether is definitely a missed opportunity. Screens are only notable in that the degenerate cases are far more degenerate than anything that came before it
- nine_k 2y ago
  I don't see a contradiction. Watching passively in an expectation of a dopamine hit = bad. Playing actively with things that respond in various interesting ways = good, no matter if the things are material or virtual.
- neom 2y ago
  Oh, his theory wasn't about video games though, they didn't exist in 1910, it was about the full breadth of human sensorial systems being used in the context of our neurology for a prolonged period of time during high neuroplasticity (0 to 6 was his theory). I haven't really played video games, so I don't know much about them personally.
  - setr 2y ago
    No I get that; video games are just my medium of choice. The problem I was trying to get at is these arguments and perceptions usually stem from the degenerate cases, which only get worse the further in time you go, but I don’t think it’s really due to the technology itself. You have the same braindead systems appear in any medium of entertainment — there are definitely systems of total waste in sports, physical play (I’ve yet to encounter anything so degenerate as balltapping — and that shit spreads rapidly once it starts), literature, etc. It can hardly be said that a studio ghibli flick stunted the imagination of children worldwide but I would definitely believe it if you suggested cocomelon rotted the brains directly out of their skulls I think it’s also worth noting that kids have a shitload of time. They can engage in both technologies and physical play and other activities simultaneously; the problem occurs when singular or few activities overwhelmingly consume that time — which is why I claim the unbounded timesinks can be catastrophic — and what I think most people are worried about when they blanket-ban whole systems/mediums
anthk 2y ago
Wasn't Waldorf a cult?
- Foobar8568 2y ago
  It is, packed of pseudosciences, which we still suffer today. In Switzerland, we get often measle outbreaks thanks to his cult.
  - neom 2y ago
    Well, how folks view the philosophy can be multifaceted, so I'll leave the pseudoscience and cult part aside. On the measles, Steiner was certainly skeptical of vaccination, but I think in Switzerland you have a cultural issue with vaccination. The Waldorf school I went to in Canada, everyone had a measles vaccine, but I do recall a Swiss student coming to our distinctively not Waldorf high school and there being a huge song and dance about their vaccination status, I think as a society generally...you've got some problems there?
    - ithkuil 2y ago
      When societies get advanced enough that all the basic needs are covered, a new generation arises where people think we can go back to a simpler past and ditch all that ugly gray industrial scientific technocratic globalistic etc etc ( add more scary qualifiers ) things that are perceived to be the the reason why things are bad and never ever concede that these things play an important role in enabling the safe environment where those very thoughts can be entertained. The hedonic treadmill is driving the world
    - f1shy 2y ago
      It is pseudoscience, as they speak as if it was science (made categorical affirmations of what is better and worst for the education), but there is not science behind it. The cult is more controversial. But as long as people believe something that is not scientifically backed, for me at least, that is what I call religion.
- jyounker 2y ago

by neom 2y ago

soulofmischief 2y ago

I will counter this by saying that my time spent with screens before 6 was unimaginably critical for me. If I hadn't had it, I would have been trapped by the racist, religously zealous, backwoods mentality that gripped the rest of my family and the majority of the people I grew up with. I discovered video games at age 3 and it changed EVERYTHING. It completely opened my mind to abstract thought and, among other things, influenced me to teach myself to read at age 3. I was reading at a collegiate level by age five and discovered another passion, books. Again, propelled me out of an extremely anti-intellectual upbringing. I simply could not imagine where I would be without video games, visual arts or books. Screens are not the problem. Absent parenting is the problem. Not teaching children the power of these screens is the problem.

f1shy 2y ago
I second this motion. Technology is just a tool. It can be wisely used or not. Just forbidding it, is not wise in my opinion. You have to be careful to use it properly, or course. Also let me drop the thought here, that Rudolf Steiner, like Montesori and the like, shoot "this is good" "this is bad" based on "feeling" or intuition, or such. There were no extensive scientific studies behind it.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  The funny thing is that I remember the exact moment I fell in love with computers at 4. My grandmother cleaned houses and was often very late to pick me up from Headstart. So I would spend hours waiting, unsupervised, in a room with computer that had a giant note attached to the screen saying DO NOT TOUCH. >:) By 5, all I wanted was a computer. To me they represented and unending well of knowledge.

setr 2y ago

I’ve been theory crafting around video games for children on the opposing premise. I think fundamentally the divide is on the quality of content — most games have some value to extract, but many are designed to be played inefficiently, and require far more time investment than value extracted. Eg Minecraft, Roblox, CoD, Fortnite, Dota/LoL, the various mobile games clearly have some kind of value (mechanical skill, hand-eye coordination, creative modes, 3D space navigation / translation / rotation, numeric optimization, social interaction, etc), but they’re also designed as massive timesinks mostly through creative mode or multiplayer. Games like paper Mario, pikmin, star control 2, katamari damacy, lego titles, however are all children-playable but far more time efficient and importantly time-bounded for play. Even within timesink games there are higher quality options — you definitely get more, and faster, out of satisfactory / factorio than modded Minecraft. If you can push kids towards the higher quality, lower timesink games, I think it’s worth. Fail to do so and it’s definitely not. The same applies to TV, movies, books, etc. Any medium of entertainment have horrendous timesinks to avoid, and if you can do so, avoiding the medium altogether is definitely a missed opportunity. Screens are only notable in that the degenerate cases are far more degenerate than anything that came before it

nine_k 2y ago
I don't see a contradiction. Watching passively in an expectation of a dopamine hit = bad. Playing actively with things that respond in various interesting ways = good, no matter if the things are material or virtual.
neom 2y ago
Oh, his theory wasn't about video games though, they didn't exist in 1910, it was about the full breadth of human sensorial systems being used in the context of our neurology for a prolonged period of time during high neuroplasticity (0 to 6 was his theory). I haven't really played video games, so I don't know much about them personally.
- setr 2y ago
  No I get that; video games are just my medium of choice. The problem I was trying to get at is these arguments and perceptions usually stem from the degenerate cases, which only get worse the further in time you go, but I don’t think it’s really due to the technology itself. You have the same braindead systems appear in any medium of entertainment — there are definitely systems of total waste in sports, physical play (I’ve yet to encounter anything so degenerate as balltapping — and that shit spreads rapidly once it starts), literature, etc. It can hardly be said that a studio ghibli flick stunted the imagination of children worldwide but I would definitely believe it if you suggested cocomelon rotted the brains directly out of their skulls I think it’s also worth noting that kids have a shitload of time. They can engage in both technologies and physical play and other activities simultaneously; the problem occurs when singular or few activities overwhelmingly consume that time — which is why I claim the unbounded timesinks can be catastrophic — and what I think most people are worried about when they blanket-ban whole systems/mediums

anthk 2y ago

Wasn't Waldorf a cult?

Foobar8568 2y ago
It is, packed of pseudosciences, which we still suffer today. In Switzerland, we get often measle outbreaks thanks to his cult.
- neom 2y ago
  Well, how folks view the philosophy can be multifaceted, so I'll leave the pseudoscience and cult part aside. On the measles, Steiner was certainly skeptical of vaccination, but I think in Switzerland you have a cultural issue with vaccination. The Waldorf school I went to in Canada, everyone had a measles vaccine, but I do recall a Swiss student coming to our distinctively not Waldorf high school and there being a huge song and dance about their vaccination status, I think as a society generally...you've got some problems there?
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    When societies get advanced enough that all the basic needs are covered, a new generation arises where people think we can go back to a simpler past and ditch all that ugly gray industrial scientific technocratic globalistic etc etc ( add more scary qualifiers ) things that are perceived to be the the reason why things are bad and never ever concede that these things play an important role in enabling the safe environment where those very thoughts can be entertained. The hedonic treadmill is driving the world
  - f1shy 2y ago
    It is pseudoscience, as they speak as if it was science (made categorical affirmations of what is better and worst for the education), but there is not science behind it. The cult is more controversial. But as long as people believe something that is not scientifically backed, for me at least, that is what I call religion.
jyounker 2y ago