Maria sinding1

My son aged 3 years 2 months has been watching movies on video
endlessly. Today he watched about 5 movies, from approximately 11
in the morning to 7 in the evening, stopping only for a short period
to get in the van to go drop off his sisters somewhere. I have
allowed him to watch all he wants, but to be honest I hate the fact
that he watches so much. So I am wondering, is this normal? Should
I be setting limits? Is this a phase he is going through? Should I
just let him watch all he wants until he eventually gets it out of
his system? Will he ever get it out of his system?

Any advice would be appreciated.

TIA
Maria







---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dana Matt

> My son aged 3 years 2 months has been watching
> movies on video
> endlessly. Today he watched about 5 movies, from
> approximately 11
> in the morning to 7 in the evening, stopping only
> for a short period
> to get in the van to go drop off his sisters
> somewhere.

My comment? Get a TV so he can watch in the van, too
:)

Dana

=====
Guadalupe's Coffee Roaster
100% Organic Fair Trade Coffee
Roasted to Perfection Daily
Free Home Delivery in Whatcom County
(360) 715-1900



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], Maria sinding1
<mkeasinding@y...> wrote:
> My son aged 3 years 2 months has been watching movies on video
> endlessly. Today he watched about 5 movies, from approximately 11
> in the morning to 7 in the evening, stopping only for a short
period
> to get in the van to go drop off his sisters somewhere. I have
> allowed him to watch all he wants, but to be honest I hate the fact
> that he watches so much. So I am wondering, is this normal? Should
> I be setting limits? Is this a phase he is going through? Should I
> just let him watch all he wants until he eventually gets it out of
> his system? Will he ever get it out of his system?


Personally, in our family we have a screen time limit. Myopia among
children is skyrocketing due to video/computer screen use (in some
places it has doubled or triped in the last 10 years.) When
children's eyes focus on a near object, such as a book, compueter
screen, or video for prolonged periods of time, in some children
their eyes will grown longer to accomodate the focusing, causing
permanent myopia.

We also encourage the kids to take "vision breaks" when they're on
the computer or video games, and also encourage them to do activities
such as outdoor play that also lets their eyes focus on distant
objects as well as near ones.

As to whether or not he will "get it out of his system", I think that
depends on the child and their personality. I have one kid who will
walk away from the screen and go and do other things, and one kid who
will be forever mesmerized by any kind of screen activity. And I know
kids who, literally, have spent years where they're on a video screen
or computer game 8 - 10 hours a day and haven't grown out of it. So I
think it is highly individual. I guess the question is, do you think
it's a problem for your child? With my child who has a hard time
disengaging from screens, he also has vision problems. Therefore, we
limit the screen time to a modest amount per day and we've discussed
the reasoning with him - that we're balancing permament problems with
his eyes and his wishes to be on the computer/video games. The other
kid doesn't have either issue and doesn't really need any limits.

I know that screen limits don't fit within some people's definitions
of unschooling <shrug> but it's what works here for our family.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

Deb Lewis

***Myopia among children is skyrocketing due to video/computer screen
use (in some
places it has doubled or triped in the last 10 years.) ***

Some studies found no link between video game/TV viewing and myopia.
Some research suggests genetic factors are the main cause of myopia.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/myokid.htm. Myopia *did* seem
to be higher in kids who read a lot, though. Maybe one day they'll
discover that myopic kids chose reading and close paper work kinds of
activities because those were the easiest activities for their visual
abilities. Who knows?

So here we are. I had a child, on purpose, even though I know my vision
isn't great. My husband has several relatives who are alcoholics, and I
knew that before we had Dylan. I knew he might inherit my bad teeth. I
knew my grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease.

I know people die in car accidents but I still strapped my baby in a car
when I wanted to go somewhere. Even if I didn't have anywhere special to
go for any real reason, I'd put him in the car and drive if I felt like
it. Airplanes crash, but he's flown with me.

I know people choke to death on food, but I still feed him. I know
people slip and fall in the shower but he still bathes. People fall down
stairs but his bedroom is upstairs. Kids fall out of bunk beds but he
sleeps six feet off the floor.

I could have said no, or limited running, swinging, playing on the slide,
riding a bike, climbing trees, swimming, hiking, trampoline. Some kids
get bitten by dogs but we have two.

Knowing genetics plays the largest roll in myopia I'd limit the course of
action I'd let my own fear take and not put a limit on my son's
cartooning or painting or reading or game play.

Deb Lewis

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], Deb Lewis <ddzimlew@j...> wrote:
> Some studies found no link between video game/TV viewing and myopia.

Some studies have shown no link between smoking and cancer. What I've read has been compelling enough that I believe the link is there.

> Some research suggests genetic factors are the main cause of myopia.
> http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/myokid.htm. Myopia *did* seem
> to be higher in kids who read a lot, though. Maybe one day they'll
> discover that myopic kids chose reading and close paper work kinds of
> activities because those were the easiest activities for their visual
> abilities. Who knows?


I don't think the causation goes that direction. For instance, studies among Inuits showed that myopia mostly occurred once reading had been introduced. In the pre-literate populations, it only rarely occured. Among Inuits who had been taught how to read, it occurred with a hugely greater frequency. ("Inuit myopia: an environmentally induced "epidemic"? R. W. Morgan, J. S. Speakman and S. E. Grimshaw ) So I don't think it's that people who are myopic prefer to read, but that too much close-work (reading, computer, video, or even something like knitting, presumably) can induce myopia by causing the eye to change its shape.

> So here we are. I had a child, on purpose, even though I know my vision
> isn't great. My husband has several relatives who are alcoholics, and I
> knew that before we had Dylan. I knew he might inherit my bad teeth. I
> knew my grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease.

Yes, my kids inherited my bad teeth as well, and that's why we have them brush them twice daily. Another preventative health measure that I feel is important. And my mom's mother died of Alzheimer's and that's why my mom is taking fish oil supplements and a daily aspirin and all of this other stuff that's supposed to forestall it. My DH's dad died of a heart attack at 42, and so he's religious about watching his cholesterol, eating habits, and exercise. There's not much we can do about the hand that was dealt us, except to play it wisely. With our son, who already has vision problems, it makes sense to work to protect his vision.

> I know people die in car accidents but I still strapped my baby in a car
> when I wanted to go somewhere.

Yes, but you did strap him in, presumably because children who aren't strapped in are much more likely to be injured or killed. I know that as a kid, I constantly rode around in a car with no seatbelts, but now that I have more information and better child seats/harnesses/seat belts at my disposal, I buckle my kids in. Another health measure that I feel is important. Now there have been plenty of times (esp. when they were younger) when they really didn't like being strapped in, but it's just not optional for health/safety reasons to me.

> I could have said no, or limited running, swinging, playing on the slide,
> riding a bike, climbing trees, swimming, hiking, trampoline. Some kids
> get bitten by dogs but we have two.

My kids do all that stuff as well, with proper precautions. They don't run on broken glass in bare feet, play with strange, snarling dogs, or ride bikes without helmets. They also love to play computer games, video games, or watch movies. They do this with the health precaution of not having too much screen time and not too much at one sitting, the same way that they ride bikes with helmets on, because I care about the health and welfare of their growing bodies.

> Knowing genetics plays the largest roll in myopia I'd limit the course of
> action I'd let my own fear take and not put a limit on my son's
> cartooning or painting or reading or game play.

From my own research, I don't personally believe that genetics plays the largest role in myopia any longer. For instance, in some places like Singapore, myopia now afflicts 80% of the 18 year old males. In just 3 generations, it's gone from being relatively rare to almost all of the population. I don't see how genetics would explain that. Studies I've seen have shown that we're on the same curve as Singapore, just a few years behind. Within a generation, almost all of our children will be myopic if the trend towards close-viewing continues. And since myopia is irreversible (at least with current medical care) and can lead to blindness, I, personally, would like to have my children avoid being affected.

This year we spent $3000 on our son's eyes (yikes!) and I respect and trust his eye doctor. Her recommendation was to limit screen time and to provide ample breaks, and also to provide plenty of outdoor long-vision activities. I think it's a good recommendation for him and for our situation.

Lastly, I don't see any huge benefit in unlimited screen time, at least not a huge enough benefit to offset the health issues that I feel are there. I know unschooled kids who have unlimited screen time and some of them are pretty well-balanced, and some of them live on their gaming system/screen and never come out of the house. None of them seem any happier/better adjusted/etc. than my kids. My kids know the reasons that we have for limiting screen time, and they understand them even if they don't always agree. They've got lots of other stuff to do around here, and they do get plenty of time to watch movies or play games. My son played about an hour's worth this morning, then we went to gymnastics and the park, and now as soon as I get off the computer they're going to watch a Pokemon movie, they're hardly deprived :-)

I also limit my own screen time, as I can feel it affecting my eyes if I'm on too long. The kids know that this is just a health principle that we all follow, just like we buckle our seatbelts.

Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Radmama to Mackenzie (8/28/96) and Asa (10/5/99)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ren

"Therefore, we
limit the screen time to a modest amount per day and we've discussed
the reasoning with him - that we're balancing permament problems with
his eyes and his wishes to be on the computer/video games. The other
kid doesn't have either issue and doesn't really need any limits."

This seems rather unfair to me. You've decided that one child has "healthy" viewing habits and because the other child has a higher need for video input, you're limiting them?
Different people have different needs. It isn't trusting your child to decide that they are doing more than they should of an activity. If a child wants to read more than another child, should that be limited?
If one child needs an intense amount of music and another does not, should we limit that?
My oldest ds was just telling me tonight about a man that played over 12 hours of video games a day (I bet he was limited as a child!!)
and is now a game producer making BIG bucks. He laughingly said "sometimes an obsession really pays off".
Well yeah.
Isn't the crux of unschooling all about trust?

Ren


Learn about unschooling at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingbasics/

J. Stauffer

<<<Isn't the crux of unschooling all about trust?>>>

I think unschooling is about trust. But it is also about freedom and responsibility. My 14 yo and my 5yo don't have the same amount of freedoms due to their differences in reasoning abilities. If my 14yo wanted to disappear for the day with people I didn't really know that well, I would make sure she had her cell phone and wouldn't worry. If my 5yo wanted to do that, I would either be accompanying them or it wouldn't happen.

I am responsible for keeping them safe.

<<<<Different people have different needs.>>>>>

I think sometimes we forget this. What is an "obsession" with some people is just something they like to do a lot. They have other interests, they have friends, they see sunlight occassionally. For others, an "obsession" blocks out anything and everything else. The difference between "Magnificent Obsession" and "Fatal Attraction."

So I think all parents limit their children somewhat based on their fears (of the effects of pornography, the effects of white sugar, the effects of running into the street without looking, the possibility of kidnappers, etc.)

I think rather than saying all limiting is bad. Perhaps we should look instead at the basis of our fears. Is it a few medical studies? Is it that we know it runs in our family? Is it that we have had direct experience with it ourselves? Is it having a measurable bad effect on our child and how are we defining "bad effect"?

Then if we still have concerns...Do we have to limit or can we simply be sure to offer other choices? Will our child listen to our fears and heed them? Do we really have to say "No, you can't"?

My youngest daughter is 5 and chose to go to school this year. When she was a baby she had a life threatening reaction to soy (which we all know is in pretty much everything). She has had several reactions to it when it was ingested accidentally that required a rush to the emergency room. It all happened when she was very small and she doesn't remember anything but a rash she would also sometimes get. We have severely limited her soy intake since infancy by only purchasing foods that didn't have soy. She didn't even know about it I don't think because it was just the way things were.

This year she chose to go to Kindergarten. Being an unschooling mom, I supported that decision. 99% of the food in the cafeteria contains soy. Michelle wants to eat in the cafeteria because she doesn't remember the reactions. I said ok because she hadn't had a reaction in several years and the rashes started. So she is back to taking her lunch. She isn't happy because she doesn't have the info that I do. She simply doesn't remember. I am not willing to risk a serious reaction while she is at school, away from me for 8 hours. I have done my best to explain the situation to Michelle, but she is 5yo and would still prefer to eat cafeteria food like her friends.

I think all parents draw that line different places. I think we need to look at where we draw the line to see if our concerns are based in reality or are we being manipulated by the media, other parents, whatever. I know for myself, I am always looking for ways to move the line towards more freedom for the kids but for now it is absolutely drawn at the point where harm is being or has been actually caused to themselves, to others or to property.

Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ren
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] video watching advice



"Therefore, we
limit the screen time to a modest amount per day and we've discussed
the reasoning with him - that we're balancing permament problems with
his eyes and his wishes to be on the computer/video games. The other
kid doesn't have either issue and doesn't really need any limits."

This seems rather unfair to me. You've decided that one child has "healthy" viewing habits and because the other child has a higher need for video input, you're limiting them?
Different people have different needs. It isn't trusting your child to decide that they are doing more than they should of an activity. If a child wants to read more than another child, should that be limited?
If one child needs an intense amount of music and another does not, should we limit that?
My oldest ds was just telling me tonight about a man that played over 12 hours of video games a day (I bet he was limited as a child!!)
and is now a game producer making BIG bucks. He laughingly said "sometimes an obsession really pays off".
Well yeah.
Different people have different needs.
Ren


Learn about unschooling at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingbasics/


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingbasics/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "Ren" <starsuncloud@n...>
wrote:
> This seems rather unfair to me. You've decided that one child
has "healthy" viewing habits and because the other child has a higher
need for video input, you're limiting them?
> Different people have different needs. It isn't trusting your child
to decide that they are doing more than they should of an activity.
If a child wants to read more than another child, should that be
limited? >>

If it was done to the extent that it was causing problems for their
eyes, sure. It's my job as a parent to simultaneously give my
children as much freedom as I possibly can, yet also watch out for
their health, safety, and welfare. If one child was running out into
the street in front of cars, I wouldn't think it "unfair" to stop
them, when I don't need to stop the other one who is standing on the
sidewalk. Neither would I believe that I was unfairly limiting their
desire for running. If either of the kids is doing something to
endanger their own health or safety, I'll help that kid to make a
safer choice. Of course I want them to meet their needs, desires, and
wants, but in safe and healthy ways.

> If one child needs an intense amount of music and another does not,
should we limit that?

Funny that you should mention that, because there are certainly times
when we have to ask DD to do just that. Her intense need for music,
music, music 24/7 often impinges on the other household member's
desire for quiet. There are times when the piano simply must be
closed up or we will all go insane :-) I would love, eventually, to
get a digital piano with headphones and it wouldn't be as much of an
issue. Being a part of a family is a balancing act that includes
everyone's needs.

> My oldest ds was just telling me tonight about a man that played
over 12 hours of video games a day (I bet he was limited as a child!!)
>>

I find it very interesting that you make that assumption. For one
thing, because I know real life unschoolers who are not limited at
all, and do play video games 12 hours a day and have for years. I
think the ability to self-limit is something that is more in-born
than some people assume. I know unschoolers with unlimited access who
self-limit quite well and I know those who absolutely do not.
Different personalities.

I also worked in the computer gaming industry, and most of the people
I know who were totally glued to their video screens as adults had
pretty unlimited access as kids. These are kids that took apart their
home Atari units and re-wired them for fun. :-) But some of them grow
up to be adults who have serious problems de-connecting from the
screen, and often serious problems connecting with other people. I
don't see that as a particularly healthy existance.

> and is now a game producer making BIG bucks. He laughingly
said "sometimes an obsession really pays off". >>

Yes, often obsessions do pay off big. But that doesn't mean that the
obsessed people are happy or healthy (bigger life goals in my mind
than having Big Bucks). I knew more than a couple of millionaires in
the computer industry that couldn't drive a car, had no friends,
never saw the sun, ate pizza and Jolt cola 24/7 and lived on their
computer. None of them struck me as particularly happy, fulfilled
people and burnout and emotional issues were par for the course in
the industry (I had one development team lead that had a nervous
breakdown at work and had to be carted off, another one threw himself
off a cliff, and several more just came unglued). For my kids, I
would wish a little more balance than I experienced with many of the
people I worked with.

> Well yeah.
> Isn't the crux of unschooling all about trust?

Within reason, yeah. There have been some things I couldn't trust my
kids with, just for health and safety reasons. One of my kids had
life-threatening food allergies. When he was younger, I had to limit
what he ate and watch everything like a hawk. Now that he's older, he
can do that for himself and understands it more. Interestingly, and
counter to the prevailing unschooling mantra, even though he was so
seriously limited on food as a young child, he has no issues with
eating, food, control, etc. I don't think having a limit, for a
health reason, guarantees some horrifying future problems down the
line. I also insist on things like seatbelts and bike helmets, even
if the kids don't like them, even if they might not fully understand
the reasons for them yet. It's my job as a parent to be concerned
about their health and safety.

Of course, I try to give the kids as much freedom to decide as I
possibly can. With the exception of health and safety, they follow
their own heart's desires. And again, just because they have a limit
doesn't mean they're severely deprived or anything. My kids play
video games, computer games, watch videos, watch TV. They just don't
do it continuously 12 hours a day.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

averyschmidt

> I think unschooling is about trust. But it is also about freedom
and responsibility. My 14 yo and my 5yo don't have the same amount
of freedoms due to their differences in reasoning abilities. If my
14yo wanted to disappear for the day with people I didn't really
know that well, I would make sure she had her cell phone and
wouldn't worry. If my 5yo wanted to do that, I would either be
accompanying them or it wouldn't happen.

Would your 5yo *want* to disappear for the day with people she
didn't know very well? My 5yo wouldn't, nor would my previous 2
5yos. But, for the sake of the argument, if a 5yo somehow spent
enough time with a group of people (that Mom didn't know very well)
to desire to disappear with them for a day I think that's a very
different situation from a child watching a lot of self-chosen
video. It's not even in the same ballpark to me.

> I think sometimes we forget this. What is an "obsession" with
some people is just something they like to do a lot. They have
other interests, they have friends, they see sunlight
occassionally. For others, an "obsession" blocks out anything and
everything else. The difference between "Magnificent Obsession"
and "Fatal Attraction."

Do you personally know anyone who has such a "fatal attraction" to
an activity or interest? Someone who doesn't have any friends at
all, someone who never sees sunlight, someone who doesn't willingly
eat or sleep? I don't.
IME that description is only used in a sarcastic/demeaning way and
doesn't at all hold up to reality.
I'm speaking generally, not personally- mabye you do know someone
like this.

> So I think all parents limit their children somewhat based on
their fears (of the effects of pornography, the effects of white
sugar, the effects of running into the street without looking, the
possibility of kidnappers, etc.)

True, but many fears are irrational, fearful and based on
misinformation. I think it's more important to really look at
the "why" of our fears with an open mind than to control our
children in order to passify such fears.
Running into the street without looking is an obvious enough one,
but are we talking about toddlers? An older child? Do we not let
an older child near the road because of an irrational fear of
traffic? This is something I need to work on- trusting my 11yo to
ride his bike further and further from home for example. I think
there's a fine line between rational (cars can be deadly and we need
to help our children stay safe) and irrational ("I know! I just
won't let him out of the house until he's 18!")

> This year she chose to go to Kindergarten. Being an unschooling
mom, I supported that decision. 99% of the food in the cafeteria
contains soy. Michelle wants to eat in the cafeteria because she
doesn't remember the reactions. I said ok because she hadn't had a
reaction in several years and the rashes started. So she is back to
taking her lunch. She isn't happy because she doesn't have the info
that I do.

Is a rash as far as the reaction would go at this point? I thought
a fatal reaction to a food was pretty much immediate. My cousin's
4yo has a life threatening peanut allergy and she literally cannot
be near them- it's not an option to give it a try and see if she
gets a rash.
On the other hand, I have a friend whose 5yo breaks out in eczema
whenever he eats dairy, mostly on his wrists and ankles. He
scratches like crazy when he has it. But since she knows that's as
far as the reaction will go she lets him choose whether eating pizza
at a birthday party or ice cream with his older siblings is worth
the temporary rash.
If I were you and it was that important to my daughter to be able to
eat with her friends, the first thing I would probably do is talk to
whoever is in charge of the cafetaria food and come up with some
other options for her. If you can get soy free foods for your home,
surely they can have some available in the cafeteria, no?
Is it the kind of cafeteria that changes the menu daily? Mabye you
could go over the ingredients with the staff and your daughter and
come up with specific cafeteria days and brown bag it the others.

Patti

averyschmidt

> If a child wants to read more than another child, should that be
> limited? >>
>
> If it was done to the extent that it was causing problems for
their
> eyes, sure.

How about a really good reading lamp, or reading glasses if
necessary? Large print books?
If a child's eyes are bothering her/him from reading (mine did as a
child when I spent all my spare time reading) it would be more
useful, I think, to look at what s/he might like to do instead for a
while than it would be to make them put the book down. For me,
reading was an escape- there were certainly no equally appealing
alternatives available.

> It's my job as a parent to simultaneously give my
> children as much freedom as I possibly can, yet also watch out for
> their health, safety, and welfare. If one child was running out
into
> the street in front of cars, I wouldn't think it "unfair" to stop
> them, when I don't need to stop the other one who is standing on
the
> sidewalk. Neither would I believe that I was unfairly limiting
their
> desire for running.

It seems irrational to me to compare running in front of a car to
spending a lot of time reading or watching videos. One is
immediately life threatening, and whether the others carry even a
*slight* possibilty of harm is debatable.
I don't think it's a good idea to use an extreme example (like
pulling a child out of the path of an oncoming car) as a
justification for any and every other limit.

> If either of the kids is doing something to
> endanger their own health or safety, I'll help that kid to make a
> safer choice.

Making a choice *for* them doesn't help them make *any* choice
though. If the ability to make good, safe decisions is the goal
then the freedom to make choices would be the key, I think.

> I find it very interesting that you make that assumption. For one
> thing, because I know real life unschoolers who are not limited at
> all, and do play video games 12 hours a day and have for years.

Are these people that you spend all your time with? I'm wondering
how you know that they have spent 12 hours a day, every day, for
years, playing video games.

> I also worked in the computer gaming industry, and most of the
people
> I know who were totally glued to their video screens as adults had
> pretty unlimited access as kids.

Were these lifelong unschoolers? Or by "pretty unlimited access" do
you mean unlimited access between school, homework and bedtime?

> But some of them grow
> up to be adults who have serious problems de-connecting from the
> screen, and often serious problems connecting with other people. I
> don't see that as a particularly healthy existance.

Again, do you personally know former unschoolers who spent all of
their waking hours playing video games and now, as adults, have
serious problems connecting with other people? What exactly do you
mean by "connecting" problem? Some people are naturally
introverted, and it may be that those people are more drawn to
computers, and for longer periods, than extroverts. I think it
would be easy for an extroverted person to assume that an introvert
is lonely or unhappy but that may not be the case at all.

> I knew more than a couple of millionaires in
> the computer industry that couldn't drive a car, had no friends,
> never saw the sun, ate pizza and Jolt cola 24/7 and lived on their
> computer. None of them struck me as particularly happy, fulfilled
> people and burnout and emotional issues were par for the course in
> the industry (I had one development team lead that had a nervous
> breakdown at work and had to be carted off, another one threw
himself
> off a cliff, and several more just came unglued).

Did these people grow up in an unschooling home?
My oldest (11) has adored video games since he was 6 and we got our
first playstation. He has always played all he wants, which has
ranged from not turning it on some days to playing, say, up to 6 or
7 hours in a day (a generous estimate and usually when he has a new
game). He doesn't like pizza, has plenty of friends, loves the sun,
and can't wait to drive a car. He spends lots of time on the
computer but certainly doesn't live there.
I honestly can't think of anything he'd want to do for 12
continuous, unbroken hours.

Patti

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "J. Stauffer"
<jnjstau@d...> wrote:
> I think rather than saying all limiting is bad. Perhaps we should
look instead at the basis of our fears. Is it a few medical
studies? Is it that we know it runs in our family? Is it that we
have had direct experience with it ourselves? Is it having a
measurable bad effect on our child and how are we defining "bad
effect"?>>>

That's how I feel about limits. We have unschooling friends whose
family has a terrible history of skin cancer. So their kids always
wear hats and long sleeves and don't go in the sun near as much as my
kids. Some might say that this is overly protective or limiting, but
they're making a decision based on their own family's history and
needs. My kids turn brown as little nuts and no-one in my family has
ever had skin cancer so while I wouldn't put them out to broil with
no protection, we don't feel that we have to be nearly that cautious
and limiting with the sun. OTOH, that family doesn't feel any need to
limit screen time while our son already has had serious problems with
his eyes. So we limit the screen time, they limit the sun time, both
families are making decisions based on what they feel is healthy.

>>>> I think all parents draw that line different places. I think we
need to look at where we draw the line to see if our concerns are
based in reality or are we being manipulated by the media, other
parents, whatever. I know for myself, I am always looking for ways
to move the line towards more freedom for the kids but for now it is
absolutely drawn at the point where harm is being or has been
actually caused to themselves, to others or to property.>>>>

That's how we try to approach it as well. We're always looking for
ways to make sure our kids can take their own responsibility and have
as much freedom as possible. My son has dealt with food allergies as
well and had so many limits with food when he was younger. Now he's
old enough to understand and to manage his own allergies/food, but
when he was younger we had to limit what he could eat or we'd be
taking another trip to the ER. Fortunately, we haven't seen the dire
consequences of limits that are sometimes foretold. He has no issues
with eating whatsoever! He's a much less picky eater than our
daughter who did not have the same allergy issues, go figure.

We're also talking with him currently about buying the X-box gaming
system that he wants, and trying to figure out ways that he can enjoy
the gaming that he wants to do, while our concerns about his eyes and
ability to disengage are also addressed. It's always a balancing act
and some kids have an easier time with self-regulating than others.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "averyschmidt"
<patti.schmidt2@v...> wrote:
> Do you personally know anyone who has such a "fatal attraction" to
> an activity or interest? Someone who doesn't have any friends at
> all, someone who never sees sunlight, someone who doesn't willingly
> eat or sleep? I don't.
> IME that description is only used in a sarcastic/demeaning way and
> doesn't at all hold up to reality.

Wow, I've met plenty of people like this. Perhaps it was working in
the computer industry for over a decade, but I met some seriously
screen-addicted folks. Folks who lived in their office, literally.
Moved a bed in, ordered pizza every night, and lived there. People
who never saw the sun, who didn't really communicate with other
people well or frequently. I know people who would stay up until 4:00
am programming, then miss a 10:00 am meeting that they were really
supposed to be at. When they weren't programming, they were gaming
(and this is before the days of X-box and Nintendo 64, we actually
had real arcade video games moved into the ends of the hallways so
the developers could play games in their spare time.) Heck, some of
these people went farther than that. I worked with people who never
learned to drive a car, open a checking account, etc. etc. who were
basically hermits in their offices.

Perhaps it's my acquaintance with these adults who could not self-
regulate their computer/video time and seeing how it affected all
areas of their life - health, relationships, sanity :-) that doesn't
give me great faith in the no-limits=self-regulation equation. Plenty
of these people I knew grew up basically glued to their computer
screens. Of course, in those days, it was an AppleIIe or Commodore
64, LOL.

I've also known people who became addicted to other things of course.
I spent 10 years skydiving, and it's not uncommon for people to
become so addicted to that sport that they basically give up the rest
of their life for it - sometimes including jobs, spouses, and
families. There's even an acronym: "AIDS" - "Air Induced Divorce
Syndrome". Basically, too much of anything can be unhealthy, and
learning to self-regulate is a great skill to have. Some people
definitely seem to have a harder time with it than others.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "averyschmidt"
<patti.schmidt2@v...> wrote:
> How about a really good reading lamp, or reading glasses if
> necessary? Large print books?

Unfortunately, none of those solve the basic myopia problem, which is
caused by focusing too long at too short of a distance.

> If a child's eyes are bothering her/him from reading (mine did as a
> child when I spent all my spare time reading) it would be more
> useful, I think, to look at what s/he might like to do instead for
a
> while than it would be to make them put the book down. For me,
> reading was an escape- there were certainly no equally appealing
> alternatives available.

Exactly. Which is why our kids have tons of great opportunities
available. Basically, they live in unschooler paradise, on a cul-de-
sac with 6 unschooling kids, a large forested lot next door with a
fort and a creek, a room full of Legos, and a great homeschooling
group with lots of friends and activities. There's certainly plenty
of good opportunities around for all kinds of fun. Most of the time,
this works pretty well and the kids get a good balance. But one of my
kids has a hard time disengaging from any kind of screen, and given
the option he will always choose to stay connected, no matter how
much he might want to do something else. That's where the limits come
in, when he's been on long enough that it *is* affecting his eyes and
would affect his health. If both of my kids were like my other kid,
who has no problem disengaging, it just wouldn't be an issue.


> It seems irrational to me to compare running in front of a car to
> spending a lot of time reading or watching videos. One is
> immediately life threatening, and whether the others carry even a
> *slight* possibilty of harm is debatable.

I guess that depends on your own opinion. To me, an epidemic of
myopia is not debatable. A situation where 80% of the population will
have a serious visual problem that is permanent and can lead to
blindness is not a trivial thing to me. You might not believe that, I
do. So we operate from different beliefs and consequently make
different decisions. Presumably, your children don't already have eye
problems, mine does. So again, I make a different decision based both
on the information I have and the situation we're in.

> I don't think it's a good idea to use an extreme example (like
> pulling a child out of the path of an oncoming car) as a
> justification for any and every other limit.

Right, I agree. And I don't justify "any and every other limit". But
I do make a limit and a decision about one specific thing - eyes and
computers - for one of my kids who already has serious eye problems.
That's a health and safety issue. Perhaps I should compare it to,
say, poking a stick at another child's eyes. That's another thing I
would limit as it could lead to blindness, pain, etc.

> Making a choice *for* them doesn't help them make *any* choice
> though. If the ability to make good, safe decisions is the goal
> then the freedom to make choices would be the key, I think.

In most circumstances, I'd agree. And we did give that a try - I was
a believer in the no-limits unschooling philosophy, but it just
didn't work for my kid on this one issue. And $3000 of eye problems
and some serious vision issues later, I'm not willing to let him make
the decisions on this issue right now. Maybe sometime in the future
he will, just like with his food allergies, I had to make all the
decisions about what he ate when he was too young to understand the
serious consequences of eating the wrong thing. Now he understands,
so he controls what he eats. While he couldn't safely make those
decisions, I made them for him. Now he's learned how, he makes them
for himself.

> Are these people that you spend all your time with? I'm wondering
> how you know that they have spent 12 hours a day, every day, for
> years, playing video games.

I'm close enough to them and to their parents to know.

> Again, do you personally know former unschoolers who spent all of
> their waking hours playing video games and now, as adults, have
> serious problems connecting with other people? What exactly do you
> mean by "connecting" problem? Some people are naturally
> introverted, and it may be that those people are more drawn to
> computers, and for longer periods, than extroverts. I think it
> would be easy for an extroverted person to assume that an introvert
> is lonely or unhappy but that may not be the case at all.

I guess I'd hope that even if my kid is an introvert that they would
have basic communications skills and an ability to interact with
other humans in meaningful ways. That is what was missing in many of
the people I knew. Personally, I'm an introvert and am pretty drawn
to computers myself, or I wouldn't have ended up in the field. I
could happily spend hours a day plunked down here in my office at
home, but I try to limit my own screen time as well. I know it's not
healthy for my body, my eyes, my soul or my family if I spend all of
my time interacting online and not as much interacting with real
people.

> Did these people grow up in an unschooling home?
> My oldest (11) has adored video games since he was 6 and we got our
> first playstation. He has always played all he wants, which has
> ranged from not turning it on some days to playing, say, up to 6 or
> 7 hours in a day (a generous estimate and usually when he has a new
> game). He doesn't like pizza, has plenty of friends, loves the
sun,
> and can't wait to drive a car. He spends lots of time on the
> computer but certainly doesn't live there.
> I honestly can't think of anything he'd want to do for 12
> continuous, unbroken hours.

That's great. I know lots of well-balanced unschooling kids like
that. My daughter is like that as well. She loves computer games, but
has lots of other interests and can easily walk away. However, there
are some kids who have a much harder time self-regulating and cannot
so easily disengage from a computer. Sounds like your kid isn't one
of them, which is great, you really haven't had to deal with this
situation. As a mom who has, who tried no-limits and found it just
didn't work, I'm giving the original poster on this thread the
benefit of my experience as well as the benefit of others who have
different opinions. For some reason, when people post not to ever
limit, their personal choice doesn't come under fire. When people
post anything about limits, it does. For us, limiting the screen time
works well. My kids are happy, engaged, and enjoy many activities,
including (but not limited to) computers, video games, DVD's, etc.
For others, not limiting might work just as well. It certainly works
fine with my daughter, it doesn't with my son. It's nice to hear more
than one party line when someone has a question along these lines,
and that's why I occasionally do post with my experience. But every
time I do, I know it will be extensively questioned, which is a bit
exhausting, so I don't do it very frequently. It's a bit too bad,
really, because then people only get to hear a certain subset of
experience, and others who might also have opinions to offer stay
silent.

This is our experience, it works well for us. I'm glad you've found
something that works well for you.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

averyschmidt

> Wow, I've met plenty of people like this. Perhaps it was working
in
> the computer industry for over a decade, but I met some seriously
> screen-addicted folks. Folks who lived in their office, literally.
> Moved a bed in, ordered pizza every night, and lived there. People
> who never saw the sun, who didn't really communicate with other
> people well or frequently. I know people who would stay up until
4:00
> am programming, then miss a 10:00 am meeting that they were really
> supposed to be at. When they weren't programming, they were gaming
> (and this is before the days of X-box and Nintendo 64, we actually
> had real arcade video games moved into the ends of the hallways so
> the developers could play games in their spare time.) Heck, some
of
> these people went farther than that. I worked with people who
never
> learned to drive a car, open a checking account, etc. etc. who
were
> basically hermits in their offices.

Were these people unschooled as children? Or were their lives and
their passions stifled by school and the built in limits it imposed?
It seems like you're drawing a connection between unschooling
parents not imposing screen limits on their children with the
possiblity that as a result they will grow up to be adults who
cannot communicate with other people, never learn to drive a car,
open a checking account, become hermits in their offices, etc.
Is that the connetion you are meaning to make? Because using adults
who weren't even unschooled as children as examples isn't the best
way to attempt to prove your argument, I don't think.

> Basically, too much of anything can be unhealthy, and
> learning to self-regulate is a great skill to have. Some people
> definitely seem to have a harder time with it than others.

Possibly. But it seems more likely to me that what looks like
a "harder time" self-regulating is actually just a child who enjoys
that activity more. Out of 3 sons I have 2 that *really* enjoy
video games and spend a lot of their time doing things that involve
screens. My middle son hardly ever touches video games- never has
liked them much, and will generally only play reluctantly when
that's what a friend wants to do. I see it clearly for what it is-
this child doesn't enjoy video games as much as his brothers. He's
more into other things. Or I could see him as "better" at self-
regulating and his brothers as having a "harder" time with it, then
panic and limit his brothers. I think I'd be doing them all a
disservice if I did that.

Patti

pam sorooshian

On Dec 16, 2004, at 6:06 AM, J. Stauffer wrote:

>
> I think rather than saying all limiting is bad.

Does anybody EVER really say that? Straw man, I think, Julie.

> Perhaps we should look instead at the basis of our fears. Is it a
> few medical studies? Is it that we know it runs in our family? Is it
> that we have had direct experience with it ourselves? Is it having a
> measurable bad effect on our child and how are we defining "bad
> effect"?

Right - understanding our own reactions is really key.
>
> Then if we still have concerns...Do we have to limit or can we simply
> be sure to offer other choices? Will our child listen to our fears
> and heed them? Do we really have to say "No, you can't"?

I think sometimes people say "no limits" but what they mean is "no
arbitrary rules limiting a kids' behavior."

For example - if I notice one of my daughters is spending 16 hours a
day watching Nickelodeon then I will definitely stop and give it some
thought. I'm not going to just say, "no limits - she can do what she
wants," to myself. I'm going to think, "What is going on with her that
she's doing this?" I'm not going to jump from "She's watching 16 hours
per day of television" to "You're limited to two hours per day." There
are a LOT of other alternatives that don't involve ME imposing
arbitrary limits - and it IS arbitrary. Why two hours? Why not 1 hour?
Why not 2 hours today and 3 tomorrow and 1 the next day? Any time
limits set like that are just something the parent came up with -
arbitrarily.

If I notice that one of my kids gets really grouchy and cranky after
watching hours of tv, I'll be responsive to that, but NOT by setting
arbitrary limits. If I notice that one of my kids gets "hooked" on
watching tv and doesn't seem to quite have the ability to turn it off
even though I think that if she did, she'd have more fun doing
something else, then I'll be responsive to THAT, too. But not with
arbitrary rules and limits.

There are other options. I'm more capable than that - I can do better.

The first thing I do is inside my OWN head - I ask myself what I think
is going on, what I'm worried about, how reasonable is my fear and all
that (as Julie described). AND I ask myself whether I'm giving my child
enough credit - have I given her time or am I ready to "do something"
based on a few days or even just a few weeks of behavior - I try to
talk myself into being more patient (because i'm a 'do something' kind
of person). I try to think about why she's doing what she's doing - try
to think about it from her perspective.

Sometimes what I come up with is that I was just about to interrupt
something that is important for her -- the teenager watching
Nickelodeon 16 hours per day might be deeply deeply thinking about her
future, might be scared and confused and needing a TON of internal time
- sitting in front of non-demanding tv is a way to be 'doing something'
while our brains can process other stuff.

Or maybe I come up with the possibility that she's depressed and
avoiding life and I need to figure out how to approach that.

There are so many possibilities - if I just say to myself, "She's
watching TOO much tv, it isn't good for her, I'm going to limit her to
2 hours per day," then I've really missed the boat.

There have been times when I felt like one of my kids was being too
sedentary and spending too much time on the computer or watching tv
than was good for them, physically. I certainly know THIS problem - I
have the same tendency, myself. But, the solution has never been to
impose arbitrary limits, but to entice them into some more physical
endeavors that they LIKE.

Teachers close the blinds in classrooms so the kids will pay attention
to them. It would be better if the opened the windows and doors and
said, "You're not only free to look out, but free to go out." And then
the teachers would have to make what was happening in the classroom
enticing enough to keep their attention.

When kids watch "too much tv" for the parents' comfort level - for
whatever reasons (not arguing about whether those are legitimate or
not) - and if the parents have given thought to what all that time
spent is meaning for the kid, etc., then I think parents at least ought
to entice the kids away, not restrict them.

My mom used to once in a while tell me to put down my book and go
outside. She thought I read too much and it was going to be bad for my
eyes. I used to sneak a book out, under my shirt, and go find a hidden
spot to sit and read out there.

Arbitrary rules and limits have the added characteristic that they
entice kids to think about how they can get around them and can even
entice kids to cheat and lie. I know a couple of really really great
unschooled kids whose parents set limits on their computer use time.
The kids used to get up in the middle of the night to use the computer
while their parents were asleep. It is an unintended but very very
predictable side effect of rules and limits that they set parents and
children up as adversaries and can lead to kids feeling guilty and
sneaky when they inevitably bend or even outright break the rules.
Avoiding that kind of possibility is one really good reason for not
having rules or limits at all.

-pam

J. Stauffer

<<<<Would your 5yo *want* to disappear for the day with people she
didn't know very well?>>>>

Not my current 5yo but my 8yo would. She has never met a stranger in her life. Her birth sister is the same way and they have never spent more than 2 days together so it may be some kind of genetic thing.

<<<<Someone who doesn't have any friends at
all, someone who never sees sunlight,>>>>

Yes, I do know someone like this.

<<<Is a rash as far as the reaction would go at this point? >>>>

I don't know. How the doctors explained it to me was that Michelle's system is able to tolerate a certain amount but when the soy in her system reaches critical mass, her face swells and capillaries begin to break down.

I am having enough trouble with the school just making them not force Michelle to say the pledge of allegiance. They already see me as a trouble-maker.

Yes, in the best possible world, working with the school would be the ideal. Sadly, I live in Bulverde, Texas.

Julie S.




----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: video watching advice




> I think unschooling is about trust. But it is also about freedom
and responsibility. My 14 yo and my 5yo don't have the same amount
of freedoms due to their differences in reasoning abilities. If my
14yo wanted to disappear for the day with people I didn't really
know that well, I would make sure she had her cell phone and
wouldn't worry. If my 5yo wanted to do that, I would either be
accompanying them or it wouldn't happen.

Would your 5yo *want* to disappear for the day with people she
didn't know very well? My 5yo wouldn't, nor would my previous 2
5yos. But, for the sake of the argument, if a 5yo somehow spent
enough time with a group of people (that Mom didn't know very well)
to desire to disappear with them for a day I think that's a very
different situation from a child watching a lot of self-chosen
video. It's not even in the same ballpark to me.

> I think sometimes we forget this. What is an "obsession" with
some people is just something they like to do a lot. They have
other interests, they have friends, they see sunlight
occassionally. For others, an "obsession" blocks out anything and
everything else. The difference between "Magnificent Obsession"
and "Fatal Attraction."

Would your 5yo *want* to disappear for the day with people she
didn't know very well? Someone who doesn't have any friends at
all, someone who never sees sunlight, someone who doesn't willingly
eat or sleep? I don't.
IME that description is only used in a sarcastic/demeaning way and
doesn't at all hold up to reality.
I'm speaking generally, not personally- mabye you do know someone
like this.

> So I think all parents limit their children somewhat based on
their fears (of the effects of pornography, the effects of white
sugar, the effects of running into the street without looking, the
possibility of kidnappers, etc.)

True, but many fears are irrational, fearful and based on
misinformation. I think it's more important to really look at
the "why" of our fears with an open mind than to control our
children in order to passify such fears.
Running into the street without looking is an obvious enough one,
but are we talking about toddlers? An older child? Do we not let
an older child near the road because of an irrational fear of
traffic? This is something I need to work on- trusting my 11yo to
ride his bike further and further from home for example. I think
there's a fine line between rational (cars can be deadly and we need
to help our children stay safe) and irrational ("I know! I just
won't let him out of the house until he's 18!")

> This year she chose to go to Kindergarten. Being an unschooling
mom, I supported that decision. 99% of the food in the cafeteria
contains soy. Michelle wants to eat in the cafeteria because she
doesn't remember the reactions. I said ok because she hadn't had a
reaction in several years and the rashes started. So she is back to
taking her lunch. She isn't happy because she doesn't have the info
that I do.

Is a rash as far as the reaction would go at this point? I thought
a fatal reaction to a food was pretty much immediate. My cousin's
4yo has a life threatening peanut allergy and she literally cannot
be near them- it's not an option to give it a try and see if she
gets a rash.
On the other hand, I have a friend whose 5yo breaks out in eczema
whenever he eats dairy, mostly on his wrists and ankles. He
scratches like crazy when he has it. But since she knows that's as
far as the reaction will go she lets him choose whether eating pizza
at a birthday party or ice cream with his older siblings is worth
the temporary rash.
If I were you and it was that important to my daughter to be able to
eat with her friends, the first thing I would probably do is talk to
whoever is in charge of the cafetaria food and come up with some
other options for her. If you can get soy free foods for your home,
surely they can have some available in the cafeteria, no?
Is it the kind of cafeteria that changes the menu daily? Mabye you
could go over the ingredients with the staff and your daughter and
come up with specific cafeteria days and brown bag it the others.

Patti









Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingbasics/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

averyschmidt

> Unfortunately, none of those solve the basic myopia problem, which
is
> caused by focusing too long at too short of a distance.

Forgive me for jumping in here and possibly missing part of the
conversation that already covered this... but it seems to me that if
focusing at short distances causes myopia, then reading would be a
big culprit while video games would be less so. None of my children
sit close to the screen when they play a game. My 5yo is playing
gamecube right now and he's on his bed a good 5 to 6 feet away from
his tv.

> But one of my
> kids has a hard time disengaging from any kind of screen, and
given
> the option he will always choose to stay connected, no matter how
> much he might want to do something else.

Did I read in another post that you tried no limits on screens in
the past? If so, for how long? And during that time did he
honestly engage with a screen non-stop from the time he woke up
until the time he went to sleep again? Why, do you think, a person
would want to continue doing something he no longer wanted to do?
The only reason I can think of is because it might get taken away
again.

> I guess that depends on your own opinion. To me, an epidemic of
> myopia is not debatable. A situation where 80% of the population
will
> have a serious visual problem that is permanent and can lead to
> blindness is not a trivial thing to me.

80 percent? Where did you get this information? I'd like to check
it out and also check out the source. I know very few people with
serious eye problems. My own children have excellent vision,
confirmed by their latest skateboard camp physical. The people that
I know that have serious vision problems are middle aged or older
(people who didn't even *have* video games or computers as children).
I'm racking my brain and I can only think of two children I know who
need glasses.

> Right, I agree. And I don't justify "any and every other limit".
But
> I do make a limit and a decision about one specific thing - eyes
and
> computers - for one of my kids who already has serious eye
problems.
> That's a health and safety issue. Perhaps I should compare it to,
> say, poking a stick at another child's eyes. That's another thing
I
> would limit as it could lead to blindness, pain, etc.

A myopic person looking at a computer screen too long, to you, is
tantamount to having a stick poked in one's eye? I'm not
following. I've heard of myopia and I've heard of needing to wear
glasses to see correctly, but I've honestly never heard of too much
computer time leading to blindness. Could you refer me to your
sources?

> And $3000 of eye problems
> and some serious vision issues later, I'm not willing to let him
make
> the decisions on this issue right now.

Do you feel that without computers your child would not have had eye
problems that needed addressing?

> > Are these people that you spend all your time with? I'm
wondering
> > how you know that they have spent 12 hours a day, every day, for
> > years, playing video games.
>
> I'm close enough to them and to their parents to know.

I also know lots of parents who say things like "my kid plays video
games all day!" or more commonly, "my kid would play video games 12
hours a day if I let him!" That doesn't mean they literally play 12
hours a day and have for years. It sounds to me like a judgemental
exaggeration. 12 hours a day for *years*? Really? How many years,
would you say?

> Sounds like your kid isn't one
> of them, which is great, you really haven't had to deal with this
> situation.

I *would* have had to "deal" with it if I had chosen to see it in a
negative light. I almost did see it that way when we first got
video games around here and my son played hours on end and late into
the night. I wrestled in my mind with exactly what you're talking
about, tried to observe my son clearly and without judgement, and
decided to wait and trust. I'm glad I did.

> It's nice to hear more
> than one party line when someone has a question along these lines,
> and that's why I occasionally do post with my experience. But
every
> time I do, I know it will be extensively questioned, which is a
bit
> exhausting, so I don't do it very frequently. It's a bit too bad,
> really, because then people only get to hear a certain subset of
> experience, and others who might also have opinions to offer stay
> silent.

I don't think there's a "party line," I think there is careful
examination of ideas and opinions- which is a good thing. I'd say
it's not a good idea to post an idea or an opinion that you're not
willing to have questioned, but you already know that! :-)

Patti

pam sorooshian

On Dec 16, 2004, at 7:09 AM, Robin Clevenger wrote:

> Funny that you should mention that, because there are certainly times
> when we have to ask DD to do just that. Her intense need for music,
> music, music 24/7 often impinges on the other household member's
> desire for quiet. There are times when the piano simply must be
> closed up or we will all go insane :-)



And - we have the SAME situation here. So we have a piano, but we also
have a full-size electric keyboard with headphones - and sometimes I
ask kids to switch to that for the sake of some quiet or to let
somebody else watch tv or whatever.

You do see that is different than arbitrarily saying that she must play
no more than 2 hours per day, right? That's not 'setting limits' as
most people mean the words - that is expecting everybody in the family
to be considerate.

If nobody was home, she could play for 16 straight hours - it would be
fine. That wouldn't be true if we had a rule about how much piano she
was allowed per day.


-pam

scrapgal

--- In [email protected], "Robin Clevenger"
<tri_mom@c...> wrote:

> Wow, I've met plenty of people like this. Perhaps it was working
in
> the computer industry for over a decade, but I met some seriously
> screen-addicted folks. Folks who lived in their office, literally.
> Moved a bed in, ordered pizza every night, and lived there. People
> who never saw the sun, who didn't really communicate with other
> people well or frequently. I know people who would stay up until
4:00
> am programming, then miss a 10:00 am meeting that they were really
> supposed to be at. <snip>

> Plenty
> of these people I knew grew up basically glued to their computer
> screens. Of course, in those days, it was an AppleIIe or Commodore
> 64, LOL.

OK, so they grew up tied to their computers, but were they
unschooled? I grew up addicted to reading. I would literally have
my nose in a book if there wasn't some other (lesser) task to do.
However, rather than being supported by my family and encouraged to
pursue my reading I was the joke in the family (especially among my
aunts, uncles and cousins.) I was taunted and called names.
Bookworm, know-it-all, Marian Librarian, etc. I actually was shamed
for reading! I wonder about other adults who are in obsessive
behaviors and how they were (dis)respected as children for the
obsessions. I think it is ok to have an obsession as long as it
doesn't become obsessive KWIM?

My xh would be that obsessive computer guy if it weren't for the
fact that his mother and father (while having other issues) did
support him in his obsessions. They allowed him to make bombs out
of black powder and film canisters and blow things up. They let him
dink with computers and other electronics (this was prior to the age
of home computers) He has counterparts who grew up being called
geek (in a bad way) and nerd. (We use the term geek as something to
live up to in our house LOL!) They are the ones that are obsessive.

I see the same behaviours in other things as well. Artists who do
nothing but art and don't sell anything and are always living hand
to mouth. They were the kids who were told that they needed to
amount to more than "just an artist." Would-be novelists.
Engineers. Gardeners. Doctors, even! I wonder what their lives
would be like had they been unschooled and given the chance and
enouragement to pursue their desires!

Michelle
Independent Kitchen Consultant #413652
The Pampered Chef
850-474-0817
January is Jumpin'!
Twice as many FREE host points!!
Contact me for the complete list of our sale items,
to get a catalog, or to schedule a show!!!

averyschmidt

> <<<<Would your 5yo *want* to disappear for the day with people she
> didn't know very well?>>>>
>
> Not my current 5yo but my 8yo would. She has never met a stranger
in her life. Her birth sister is the same way and they have never
spent more than 2 days together so it may be some kind of genetic
thing.

She's never met a stranger in her life but she'd want to disappear
with one for the day if she had the opportunity? If so I'd
definitely want to find out what it was she wanted out of that
experience and provide it in other ways. Adventure? Then come up
with an adventure together. Spending the day alone with someone
she's never met before just for the mystery of it? (I can't
personally imagine this, but hey, different strokes for different
folks!) Mabye send her off with someone you know well (an old
friend?) that your daughter doesn't. There's a whole lot of gray
area in between can and can't.

> <<<<Someone who doesn't have any friends at
> all, someone who never sees sunlight,>>>>
>
> Yes, I do know someone like this.

Is this an unschooled someone?

> I am having enough trouble with the school just making them not
force Michelle to say the pledge of allegiance. They already see me
as a trouble-maker.

I can't imagine addressing how the food they're serving relates to
her medical condition (especially with a doctor to back you up)
would be seen as trouble making.
And even if it was seen that way I'd do it anyway.

Patti

Dana Matt

> > > Are these people that you spend all your time
> with? I'm
> wondering
> > > how you know that they have spent 12 hours a
> day, every day, for
> > > years, playing video games.
> >
> > I'm close enough to them and to their parents to
> know.
>
> I also know lots of parents who say things like "my
> kid plays video
> games all day!" or more commonly, "my kid would play
> video games 12
> hours a day if I let him!" That doesn't mean they
> literally play 12
> hours a day and have for years. It sounds to me
> like a judgemental
> exaggeration. 12 hours a day for *years*? Really?
> How many years,
> would you say?

We have three TV's....And they are probably all on for
12 or more hours a day. The TV in this room is on,
from when Democracy Now got over an hour ago. It's
on, and I'm listening, but I'm also responding to
email and instant messaging a friend. I've also
showered, highlighted my hair, given myself a trim,
blowdried my hair, made two cups of coffee, and walked
to dogs while the TV has been on. My 6 yo's tv is on
as well. It came on as soon as she woke up. She is
sitting in this room, on the floor, making some kind
of sign that she's taping up and won't show me. She's
waiting for the computer to play another rousing game
of zoo tycoon, which she played for a few hours last
night. My 12 yo's TV will no doubt come on as soon as
she wakes up as well. But during the day they will
play games, draw, write, read, cook, eat, wrestle,
come to chat with me, tivo something and call me in to
see it, go to play with friends, etc, etc, etc. Just
because the tv is on all day doesn't mean they are
watching ALL DAY. I admit, to some who don't pay
attention, it might look like that though.

Dana

=====
Guadalupe's Coffee Roaster
100% Organic Fair Trade Coffee
Roasted to Perfection Daily
Free Home Delivery in Whatcom County
(360) 715-1900



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "averyschmidt"
<patti.schmidt2@v...> wrote:
> It seems like you're drawing a connection between unschooling
> parents not imposing screen limits on their children with the
> possiblity that as a result they will grow up to be adults who
> cannot communicate with other people, never learn to drive a car,
> open a checking account, become hermits in their offices, etc.
> Is that the connetion you are meaning to make? Because using
adults
> who weren't even unschooled as children as examples isn't the best
> way to attempt to prove your argument, I don't think.

Actually, I was just responding to your assertion "Do you personally
know anyone who has such a "fatal attraction" to an activity or
interest? Someone who doesn't have any friends at all, someone who
never sees sunlight, someone who doesn't willingly eat or sleep? I
don't. IME that description is only used in a sarcastic/demeaning way
and doesn't at all hold up to reality." and I was stating that yes,
indeed, I have met many such people. It's not merely
a "sarcastic/demeaning" description that "doesn't hold up to
reality". It is reality for some people. I was using it to prove any
argument, I was stating that such people exist.

> Possibly. But it seems more likely to me that what looks like
> a "harder time" self-regulating is actually just a child who enjoys
> that activity more.

Or, just possibly, it's a harder time self-regulating. I don't mean
enjoying an activity "more", I mean being unable to break away from a
screen to do things you actually want to do, like, say eat dinner,
even when you're hungry. Or go out with your friends when they're
standing there asking you to. I think it's great that your kids don't
have this issue. One of mine does. We didn't limit his screen time
for 2 years. We had constant battles when we asked him to disengage
for anything, even things he asked us to set up like a playdate, he'd
have a screaming fit when it was time to go. Personally, I'm not
willing for our lives to be like that.

>Or I could see him as "better" at self-
> regulating and his brothers as having a "harder" time with it, then
> panic and limit his brothers. I think I'd be doing them all a
> disservice if I did that.

Probably so, because it doesn't sound like they have this issue. I
don't personally believe I'm doing my kid a disservice by
understanding that he this one particular issue and finding a
solution for it. He's happier, I'm happier, our household is a much
calmer place.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

averyschmidt

> Just
> because the tv is on all day doesn't mean they are
> watching ALL DAY. I admit, to some who don't pay
> attention, it might look like that though.

I agree.
But I think the poster said that these children are playing video
games 12 hours a day (which requires interaction), not just having a
tv on. I can totally believe that in some homes there is a tv on at
all times whether or not someone is watching. I still can't believe
that there are unschooled children playing video games 12 straight
hours a day every day for years on end.

Patti

Dana Matt

> Or, just possibly, it's a harder time
> self-regulating. I don't mean
> enjoying an activity "more", I mean being unable to
> break away from a
> screen to do things you actually want to do, like,
> say eat dinner,
> even when you're hungry. Or go out with your friends
> when they're
> standing there asking you to. I think it's great
> that your kids don't
> have this issue. One of mine does. We didn't limit
> his screen time
> for 2 years. We had constant battles when we asked
> him to disengage
> for anything, even things he asked us to set up like
> a playdate, he'd
> have a screaming fit when it was time to go.
> Personally, I'm not
> willing for our lives to be like that.

If you were forcing him, kicking and screaming, to
attend play dates when he would rather play video
games, that doesn't sound like "unlimited". I have
made dates, only to, when the time comes, not really
be interested in stopping what I'm doing to go.
Thankfully I don't have anyone dragging me, kicking
and screaming, to keep my appointments. I just call
up and say "You know, I'm really into this thing right
now, can we do it tomorrow instead?" Does that make
me addicted, unable to self-regulate? Or does it just
make me aware of my own needs, and able to fulfill
them?
Dana

=====
Guadalupe's Coffee Roaster
100% Organic Fair Trade Coffee
Roasted to Perfection Daily
Free Home Delivery in Whatcom County
(360) 715-1900




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], pam sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
>
> > I think rather than saying all limiting is bad.
>
> Does anybody EVER really say that? Straw man, I think, Julie.

Your last line in this same post was "> Avoiding that kind of
possibility is one really good reason for not
> having rules or limits at all." I don't think it's a straw man.


> For example - if I notice one of my daughters is spending 16 hours
a
> day watching Nickelodeon then I will definitely stop and give it
some
> thought. I'm not going to just say, "no limits - she can do what
she
> wants," to myself. I'm going to think, "What is going on with her
that
> she's doing this?" I'm not going to jump from "She's watching 16
hours
> per day of television" to "You're limited to two hours per day."
There
> are a LOT of other alternatives that don't involve ME imposing
> arbitrary limits - and it IS arbitrary.

Yes, that's true. And just speaking for us, personally, before coming
to limits, we went through a long thought process and tried various
things with very limited success. I would pretty much assume that
most unschoolers would try to creatively problem solve and find other
solutions - I know we did.

> There are so many possibilities - if I just say to myself, "She's
> watching TOO much tv, it isn't good for her, I'm going to limit her
to
> 2 hours per day," then I've really missed the boat.

Yes, I would think so too. But I would also think that after a couple
of years of this, where many different possibilities were tried, many
different approaches thought about, and the parent came to using a
limit as a viable solution and it worked well for everyone concerned,
that it shouldn't be seen as a problem. I don't think an automatic
knee-jerk limit response is the way to go in any situation. But I
think it's one tool in a parents toolbag of possible approaches, and
I don't personally think of it as the horrifying prospect that some
people do here.

> There have been times when I felt like one of my kids was being too
> sedentary and spending too much time on the computer or watching tv
> than was good for them, physically. I certainly know THIS problem -
I
> have the same tendency, myself. But, the solution has never been
to
> impose arbitrary limits, but to entice them into some more physical
> endeavors that they LIKE.

And if that didn't work? If there was never anything they liked
better? Just curious...


> It is an unintended but very very
> predictable side effect of rules and limits that they set parents
and
> children up as adversaries and can lead to kids feeling guilty and
> sneaky when they inevitably bend or even outright break the rules.

That's a possibility, but it's not a given. I don't personally
believe that one thing leads to another. As a kid, my parents limited
my own television watching (well, they eventually got rid of the
television, LOL). I didn't sneak around, wasn't interested in
watching it at friend's houses, and didn't become a television junky
the second I moved out of the house. I didn't own a TV for years as
an adult, though I do now and do enjoy watching some shows. I don't
think TV is inherently evil, but I also don't resent my parents'
views or their limits on it either. <shrug> I could just as easily
say "It is an unintended but very very predictable side effect of few
rules and limits that children become unruly, wild, and unmanageable
and that the relationship between parents and kids becomes strained."
Now that's not any more true than what you said, but I have seen it
happen in a couple of families. The fact is, that family dynamics are
way more complicated than these simplistic predictions. I love and
respect my kids, they love and respect me. I try not to make too many
arbitrary rules or limits, they do understand and respect the ones I
do make. So far, it's working well. If it starts to not work well,
we'll think about, adjust, and change. And the predictions of doom
and gloom due to one limit in their life, I guess I'm just not too
worried about it.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

averyschmidt

> Actually, I was just responding to your assertion "Do you
personally
> know anyone who has such a "fatal attraction" to an activity or
> interest? Someone who doesn't have any friends at all, someone who
> never sees sunlight, someone who doesn't willingly eat or sleep? I
> don't. IME that description is only used in a sarcastic/demeaning
way
> and doesn't at all hold up to reality." and I was stating that
yes,
> indeed, I have met many such people. It's not merely
> a "sarcastic/demeaning" description that "doesn't hold up to
> reality". It is reality for some people.

So these many people need someone to show up and force them to eat
something? Someone to turn off the screen for them and lay them
down for sleep? Are you saying, literally, that they *never* see
sunlight? If your answer is "no" to any of the above, then to
describe them that way is sarcastic and demeaning IMO.

Patti

pam sorooshian

On Dec 16, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Robin Clevenger wrote:

> Perhaps it was working in
> the computer industry for over a decade, but I met some seriously
> screen-addicted folks. Folks who lived in their office, literally.
> Moved a bed in, ordered pizza every night, and lived there. People
> who never saw the sun, who didn't really communicate with other
> people well or frequently.

I knew some people like that, too. And I'm old <g> and these people
were older than I am. They had NO tv or video games or computers when
they were kids.

-pam

Dana Matt

--- averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...> wrote:

>
>
> > Just
> > because the tv is on all day doesn't mean they are
> > watching ALL DAY. I admit, to some who don't pay
> > attention, it might look like that though.
>
> I agree.
> But I think the poster said that these children are
> playing video
> games 12 hours a day (which requires interaction),
> not just having a
> tv on. I can totally believe that in some homes
> there is a tv on at
> all times whether or not someone is watching. I
> still can't believe
> that there are unschooled children playing video
> games 12 straight
> hours a day every day for years on end.
>
> Patti

Sorry, Patti, I was thrown off by the title "Video
watching". I also doubt that anyone could do anything
for 12 hours straight--videos, TV, books, skydiving.
There has to be time for bathroom breaks and eating,
and after that my children are seldom up for much more
than 12 hours! Again, I think the video game might be
on for 12 hours, but it has a "pause" button and I
suggest that it might only "look" like people are
playing it for 12 hours straight, day after day...
Dana

=====
Guadalupe's Coffee Roaster
100% Organic Fair Trade Coffee
Roasted to Perfection Daily
Free Home Delivery in Whatcom County
(360) 715-1900



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], "averyschmidt"
<patti.schmidt2@v...> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, none of those solve the basic myopia problem,
which
> is
> > caused by focusing too long at too short of a distance.
>
> Forgive me for jumping in here and possibly missing part of the
> conversation that already covered this... but it seems to me that
if
> focusing at short distances causes myopia, then reading would be a
> big culprit while video games would be less so. None of my
children
> sit close to the screen when they play a game. My 5yo is playing
> gamecube right now and he's on his bed a good 5 to 6 feet away from
> his tv.


Yes, reading is as big of a culprit. In fact, myopia is exceedingly
rare in pre-literate populations of people. As for screen distance, I
wish I could keep my kids away from sitting right next to the screen.
For some reason, they love to do that. I'll come in and they'll
actually have their noses almost on the screen.

> Did I read in another post that you tried no limits on screens in
> the past? If so, for how long?

2 years

> And during that time did he
> honestly engage with a screen non-stop from the time he woke up
> until the time he went to sleep again?

Well, any attempt at any other activity was met with tantrums. Even
attempts to disengage him to go to an activity that he had asked me
to set up for him (a playdate, a homeschool group activity)

> Why, do you think, a person
> would want to continue doing something he no longer wanted to do?
> The only reason I can think of is because it might get taken away
> again.

A predictable response (that last sentence). No, there was no threat
of taking it away as at that point and time, I was totally bought in
to the unschooling-means-no-limits point of view. I saw them as the
evil incarnate that they've been portrayed as on various unschooling
lists. As to why? I don't know. Why can I have a beer after dinner
and not want another one, while my good friend can never touch a beer
without wanting 20? Why can some people self-regulate with food or
alcohol or tobacco or books or chatrooms or pornography and some
people can't?? If you could answer that question, you could make a
billion bucks, I'd bet.

For me, I know never to take a good fast-paced book to bed with me
unless I want to be tired and grumpy the next day because my brain
can't stop reading until I've finished it. Some people's brains in
some ways just have a hard time disconnecting. <shrug>

> 80 percent? Where did you get this information? I'd like to check
> it out and also check out the source.

Well, originally it was in an article I read in a magazine. The
article referenced Singapore, which has had an explosive growth in
myopia, and also mentioned that the U.S. is on the same curve as
Singapore, but a few years behind.

Just googling myopia and Singapore brought up:

http://www.snec.com.sg/ecp/childhood_myopia.asp

A quote from that site: "Myopia is a rapidly worsening public health
problem in Singapore. Surveys have indicated that myopia afflicts 25%
of 7 year olds, 33% of 9 year olds, 50% of 12 year olds and more than
80% of 18 year old males in Singapore. "

> A myopic person looking at a computer screen too long, to you, is
> tantamount to having a stick poked in one's eye?

No, but both are behaviors that could, possibly, lead to blindness.
One in the very immediate short term - with a poke. One in the very
slow long-term. If 80% of males are at risk for myopia by the time
they reach 18, and myopia is incurable and can lead to blindness,
then yes the risk is there.

> Do you feel that without computers your child would not have had
eye
> problems that needed addressing?

I feel that the screen time exacerbated and accelerated an already-
existing problem.

> I *would* have had to "deal" with it if I had chosen to see it in a
> negative light. I almost did see it that way when we first got
> video games around here and my son played hours on end and late
into
> the night. I wrestled in my mind with exactly what you're talking
> about, tried to observe my son clearly and without judgement, and
> decided to wait and trust. I'm glad I did.

And I too waited and trusted, and the outcome was different for me
and my kid. I wonder why you have such a hard time believing that
people are different? After all, a good friend of mine is a walking
twig, yet can eat anything she wants to. If we go out to dinner, she
orders two entrees to my one. Yet she doesn't gain a pound. I think
it would be a bit ludicrous of her to tell me that because she
doesn't gain any weight that I could eat exactly as she does and be
equally skinny. She has a different body, different metabolism, etc.
than I do. What works for her doesn't work for me and vice versa. So
while she eats her two entrees, I eat 75% of mine and run 8 miles the
next day and still outweigh her by 30 pounds. Oh well, that is just
the way life is. I'm glad that your kids don't have a problem
disengaging from the screen, just like I'm glad my friend can eat her
double cheesecake and not gain an ounce.

> I don't think there's a "party line," I think there is careful
> examination of ideas and opinions- which is a good thing. I'd say
> it's not a good idea to post an idea or an opinion that you're not
> willing to have questioned, but you already know that! :-)

Oh yeah, I've been on these boards enough years to know what will and
won't get questioned. But I also know that only a narrow subset of
opinions get heard because of that. It's a double-edged sword. Some
good comes of it, and also some bad. I know people that lurk here and
elsewhere and won't post their views because they don't want to open
themselves up to the constant barrage. Myself, I've got a fairly
thick skin, I know what's working well for us, and the rest doesn't
bother me too much.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-

Robin Clevenger

--- In [email protected], Dana Matt
<hoffmanwilson@y...> wrote:
> If you were forcing him, kicking and screaming, to
> attend play dates when he would rather play video
> games, that doesn't sound like "unlimited".

Well, let's please not put words in my mouth. I didn't force him
kicking and screaming to do anything. You'll notice I said that he
was screaming when I "asked him to disengage". Asking someone
politely is hardly the same as dragging them kicking and screaming.

> I have
> made dates, only to, when the time comes, not really
> be interested in stopping what I'm doing to go.

And if you do this every day to your friends, how many friends would
you end up having? Personally, I think it's rude to ask someone else
to drive 20 minutes to meet you at a playground only to not show up
because your kid at the last minute decided he wanted to keep on
playing his video game when he is the one who wanted his friend to
meet him at the playground in the first place. And the point is that
even things he *wanted* to do and *asked* to do were no longer
appealing once he was in front of a screen.

Blue Skies,
-Robin-