jenneferh2000

A while back there was discussion on TV watching (as regularly comes
around, right?) and in this particular discussion someone made the
argument that TV was addictive and that's why the parent limited
viewing. There was some rebuttle regarding the 'addictiveness' of
TV, and am wondering if people could refresh my memory as a good
friend of mine's strongest argument against limiting TV and food (and
probably other things) is based upon their addictiveness. The only
point I remember from the past discussion is that someone said the
potential addictiveness would depend on the parents' history or
tendency to addiction.

I sure would appreciate some insight on how people feel about this as
I don't have a strong defense against this argument and would really
hate to get caught up in wondering if my sons are addicted to this or
that. There do exist addicts in my family (alcohol) and I could
easily say that I *could* be addicted to coffee or other (said light
heartedly), but my friend is so strong headed that sugar, chocolate,
TV, & other are addictive that they should be regulated.

But then, couldn't anything be addictive? And when do you say, aha,
yes, you are addicted! (Or, no, you just *really* like to do/eat
ABC...)

Thanks for any insight.

Jennefer in Oregon

[email protected]

In a message dated 2/16/2005 11:33:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, "jenneferh2000" <jenneferh2000@...> writes:

>But then, couldn't anything be addictive?  And when do you say, aha,
>yes, you are addicted! (Or, no, you just *really* like to do/eat
>ABC...)<<<


Yes. I'm "addicted" to dogs and dog shows and chocolate and bees and TV and cooking and gardening and unschooling and my kids and my husband and.... <BWG>

I can't live without 'em! <G> Well, maybe I *could*, but I wouldn't WANT to!

~Kelly

[email protected]

In a message dated 2/16/2005 11:39:50 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
kbcdlovejo@... writes:

Yes. I'm "addicted" to dogs and dog shows and chocolate and bees and TV and
cooking and gardening and unschooling and my kids and my husband and....
<BWG>


================

Marty used to joke that he was addicted to water and food and sleep.

Sandra


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

Elizabeth Hill

**There was some rebuttal regarding the 'addictiveness' of TV, and am
wondering if people could refresh my memory as a good friend of mine's
strongest argument against limiting TV and food (and probably other
things) is based upon their addictiveness.**

It's important to distinguish between habits and addiction. Watching a lot of TV can be a pattern or habit of a tired person, but most anyone who wishes to go "cold turkey" on TV can do it without any physical withdrawal symptoms, of course. TV does not create chemical changes in the body.

I think kids that are drawn to TV or Nintendo are drawn to it through their natural desires to LEARN. TV or videogames can seem so magnetic because they have so much action and so much content. It's natural for kids to be attracted to things that are rich and stimulating. Learning should be rich and stimulating and kids are born with a powerful desire to learn.

Betsy

PS I will allow that sugar has a chemical effect and that blood-sugar fluctuations after consuming sugar can create some level of craving for more sugar. I don't think TV does that, even if a show is suspenseful <g>.

PPS Is all food addictive? You can't give it up completely, after all.

Susan Buchholz

Hi, I'm new and I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this discussion. These are just my personal convictions based on my relationship with my son and our personal experiences. I know most people wouldn't agree with this nor should they have to.

First, An addiction is anything that creates a dependency in the person participating in the action. Like gambling. It becomes a compulsive, obsessional act, often used to get away from boredom, depression, life situations that don't provide positive/negative responses someone likes to receive. In the dictionary it says: "addict: to devote or surrendor (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively." So it is habit forming which is defined as an addiction. Just like biting nails can just keep on going on because you do it so much without thought. That's what the danger is supposed to be. It's done without really thinking about it.

When we took the tv out of our home (we went without tv for six years) we both went through a huge adjustment period. It was really tough. What do we do with our time? What do we talk about? I miss this show or that show. But then we started reading more and together every night and throughout the day, biking, playing games, talking, drawing,coming up with creative ways to spend our time, and spend time in solitude to think/meditate, etc... It was the best thing either of us ever did.

My sister, to be nice, decided to give us cable tv as my birthday present this past year. I just thanked her since she'd prepayed it through to my birthday coming up this year. She thought we were missing out on tv way out here in this boring country setting we have. (it's not boring... but she's a city person who can't imagine living like we do. :-) Anyway, it's been okay. We've begun watching our favorite shows and spending some time in front of the tv at nights with our dinner instead of at the table. My son said something to me yesterday that pretty much summed up what I had been feeling since before Christmas time. "Mom, I feel like you and I are in the same house but we don't know each other anymore." He proceeded to tell me that it's okay to watch Sponge Bob and Jimmy once in a while, but other than that, it doesn't seem really worth it to have around. I know my friends all think we're nuts, but it's just that we tried it without TV for six years and discovered, that for us,
it's works out better without it. I will miss it. I really will. Especially when I don't feel much like reading or when my health is on the outs again. However, when my son said that to me, it solidified the things I had kept to myself all these months. I really missed my son and our special relationship we had developed without the television set.


My son is taking a video game programming class and one of the things written about in the manual is to make sure that you make the game "addictive". It has to have qualities in it that people will want to keep coming back to and play again and again. Anything can become addicting. My son loves his games. Always wants to buy more and loves reading the game books. He wants to win another one and win another one. They are exciting, fun, and what he has told me, that is addicting. He actually says that the high action and the suspense and thrill of the game is addicting to him. It provides the excitment he's looking for instead of just plain old daily life. He says it gives him a fun place to escape to when life is boring. Whether that can be deemed as bad or not is a personal decision. To me, that seems sad because life isn't boring. But being so used to playing these exciting, fast paced games since he was only seven years old, has caused in him a "dependency" on this type of
excitement.

Anyway, I'm not out to tell anyone that they shouldn't watch tv or their children shouldn't. Or that children shouldn't play video games. Mine does and is learning how to design them. I think it's a very personal choice. I just wanted to share what we have found out for ourselves to be true to our family.

Peace,

Susan



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[email protected]

-=- "addict: to devote or surrendor (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively." -=-

Which dictionary?
If that's the verb definition, it seems it's something the addict (noun) does, and that's not true.

-=-I really missed my son-=-

Why couldn't you have watched some programs with him?

If people didn't have books, then they got books, and they never shared, that wouldn't be the fault of the books.

-=-My son is taking a video game programming class and one of the things written about in the manual is to make sure that you make the game "addictive". It has to have qualities in it that people will want to keep coming back to and play again and again. Anything can become addicting.-=-

If someone writes a book that's boring after the first chapter so that people aren't moved to watch the rest of it, is that a better book than one that hooks you and makes you want to read it without putting it down?

-=-They are exciting, fun, and what he has told me, that is addicting. He actually says that the high action and the suspense and thrill of the game is addicting to him.-=-

Just because he says it doesn't make it so. Alcoholism is addiction. It's not high action and suspense and thrill. Cocaine is addiction. They get suspense and thrill, but it involves debts to dealers and horrible friends you can't get rid of and paranoia and the threat of prison.

Something fun like a video game can be a hobby, an interest, an obsession, but it's not an addiction in a physical way.

-=-It provides the excitment he's looking for instead of just plain old daily life. He says it gives him a fun place to escape to when life is boring. Whether that can be deemed as bad or not is a personal decision. To me, that seems sad because life isn't boring.-=-

Those games ARE part of his life. If the game is more interesting than what you were offering as an alternative, will you take the game away to make your ideas more interesting?

-=-But being so used to playing these exciting, fast paced games since he was only seven years old, has caused in him a "dependency" on this type of
excitement. -=-

I like my husband. We've been together for over 25 years. I'm used to him. I'm used to being with him, I'm dependent on him. I like him better than not having him. I like him better than other men. That's not addiction. That's making good choices and appreciating what I have, and being grateful for good moments.

I play guitar. I like to. Should I stop when I find myself wanting to play more?

I sing a couple of times a month, with other people. I like it. It's less boring than NOT singing. It's exciting. I feel really good afterwards. Why is that not good?

Sandra


Sandra

bookwood01

Hi Sandra. Thanks for posting so quickly to my message. The
dictionary I got that out of was the Merriam Webster Collegate
Dictionary tenth edition... and it was for addict, not addiction.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I answered you throughout your post
if you don't mind scrolling down. Thanks.

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> -=- "addict: to devote or surrendor (oneself) to something
habitually or obsessively." -=-
>
> Which dictionary?
> If that's the verb definition, it seems it's something the addict
(noun) does, and that's not true.
>
> -=-I really missed my son-=-
>
> Why couldn't you have watched some programs with him?

*** I did watch with him. A lot of times. It was just that to he and
I it seemed like the attention was paid to the TV instead of each
other. We found ourselves, a lot of times, just sitting and
laughing, talking a little on the comercials, and then when it was
over, we had spent that time not interacting with one another but
merely sitting along side each other watching others interact. That
didn't seem to us to be what we wanted or needed. We'd miss each
other that way. That's how it was for us, anyway. Just for us.
>
> If people didn't have books, then they got books, and they never
shared, that wouldn't be the fault of the books.
>
***For us it's a different type of thing that happens with books. We
read to each other. That to us feels like participation. I'm not
saying that is how it works for other people. I'm sure lots of
people can get that from TV, but we don't. When we watch a movie
together, we have a good time. It's our time to escape for a little
while and watch someone else, but we can't do it often because it
seems to snatch time away and for us, we don't like that. I've got
some health problems that mean I may not have a lot of days that I
will be well on, so spending those times with him in talk and
interaction is important to me. Even before I got diagnosed with all
this, it was just important to us. Like I said, it's not for
everybody and it shouldn't have to be. For us, we have quiet book
time when he's engrosed in a book he loves and I'm into one I love
and then we have one we pick out together and read and talk our way
through.


> -=-My son is taking a video game programming class and one of the
things written about in the manual is to make sure that you make the
game "addictive". It has to have qualities in it that people will
want to keep coming back to and play again and again. Anything can
become addicting.-=-
>
> If someone writes a book that's boring after the first chapter so
that people aren't moved to watch the rest of it, is that a better
book than one that hooks you and makes you want to read it without
putting it down?

***Absolutely not. Good point. That's true. And what interests
someone in a book certainly would not interest everyone. I read some
terribly boring books according to my son. It's a matter of tastes.
My friend thinks the books I like are just terribly boring as well.
I would never read the books she reads, I've got no interest in
them. But for her they are exciting, just as for me, the books I
read are exciting. No two people can be exactly alike, nor can any
two families.
>
> -=-They are exciting, fun, and what he has told me, that is
addicting. He actually says that the high action and the suspense
and thrill of the game is addicting to him.-=-

*** Perhaps you took my statement about my son as a statement meant
to cover all. That was not my intention. Sorry if it sounded like
that. Like I said, I was just sharing what we have found for our
family and what works for us as a family.

What you say is true about alcoholism. It is a chemical dependency.
My friend's husband is a police officer. He worked in a high crime
area for a while. While he was there, he grew very attached to the
job. Both because he was doing good for people in the area, but also
because he was getting a rush out of it. When he talked to his
fellow officers, they all admitted that there is a definate rush and
thrill in the job. Most folks become police to do good. I doubt any
of them got into it because it's a total thrill, because mostly,
it's not. But put into those situations repeatedly, I guess,
produced a rush for these guys. Like climbing a mountain. That is a
chemical release. A person's adrenaline rises up and that's very
addicting. Does that make it bad? No, not necessarily. It depends on
how each individual handles it. I never took my son's games away
from him... I won't, either. We all have the things we enjoy and
like for whatever reasons. Addiction might mean something very
negative to many people. And if addiction is habit according to my
dictionary (addict), then what is to say that any one habit is all
good or all bad? It's what a person does with it. That is to say,
how we define addiction and how we use the word has become a major
buzz word/cover all word for a lot of us. Me included. But what I
know of human chemistry and the body, when we do something,
chemicals are released in reaction to the things we do. That's just
how we work. Addiction or function? Does anyone really know?
>
> Just because he says it doesn't make it so. Alcoholism is
addiction. It's not high action and suspense and thrill. Cocaine
is addiction. They get suspense and thrill, but it involves debts
to dealers and horrible friends you can't get rid of and paranoia
and the threat of prison.

>
> Something fun like a video game can be a hobby, an interest, an
obsession, but it's not an addiction in a physical way.

***Yes, I agree. I think it can definatly be that way. For me and
for my son, we judge it by how much time he wants to spend on it. If
it turns into hours at a time, something isn't quite in the right.
Not because he's spent time doing something he loves, but because he
becomes a bit more aggitated, irritated, and even gets a stomach
ache and because we both feel like we missed out on thing. He often
says he wishes he'd done this or that instead of playing the game
all that time. He has difficulty figuring time into things, but
that's another story. Anyway, That is our take on it for ourselves.

My friend's son plays video games from the time he gets home to the
time he goes to bed. He loves it. He doesn't spend much time with
the family except at dinner. That is worrisome to her, but her son
thinks it's fine so she lets him. That's his decision. He's 17 and
he's old enough to decide what is best for him. He enjoys it. My
son is 12 and we discuss his views of these things and what it means
to him and what he finds it meaning to our family. Then we go from
there. Each person is different.
>
> -=-It provides the excitment he's looking for instead of just
plain old daily life. He says it gives him a fun place to escape to
when life is boring. Whether that can be deemed as bad or not is a
personal decision. To me, that seems sad because life isn't boring.-
=-

>
> Those games ARE part of his life. If the game is more interesting
than what you were offering as an alternative, will you take the
game away to make your ideas more interesting?
>
***Those games are certainly part of his life. I wouldn't take them
away, like I said before. I would never take things from my son's
life because I want him interested in my things. That' would be
cruel. The TV was a family decision. Games he loves, he keeps.
However, when they interfere with chores, dinner time, and other
important aspects of the day, i do say something. There does need to
be a limit. It is just he and I and there are responsibilities.

What I can provide him right now is limited since I spend time in
and out of hospitals and doctors offices for tests and such. If I
could offer all the things I once did for him I would. But being a
single mother with several illnesses has really cramped our lives
for the time being. My ideas should not be my son's. They are mine.
However, we learn from each other. Just like I signed him up for his
video game design class because he wanted it and he was excited
about it. I don't regret it one bit. It's been wonderful for him.
He's happy. He lets me sit with him and teaches me what he's been
learning. He shows me the ropes. That's a lot of fun for us both.
But he's also happy doing other things when I'm more healthy and we
both look forward to it. That doesn't mean he's giving up his games.
I wouldn't do that to him. I think you may have misunderstood what I
was trying to say. I think my son will probably grow up and be a
wonderful game designer. I think he'll also be a cartoonist because
those are the two things he longs to do. So I would never take that
away from him. He's fantastic at both.


> -=-But being so used to playing these exciting, fast paced games
since he was only seven years old, has caused in him a "dependency"
on this type of
> excitement. -=-
>
> I like my husband. We've been together for over 25 years. I'm
used to him. I'm used to being with him, I'm dependent on him. I
like him better than not having him. I like him better than other
men. That's not addiction. That's making good choices and
appreciating what I have, and being grateful for good moments.

*** How could love like that be an addiction? You've grown to know
each other and depend on each other. It's very important. It's very
human. It's fantastic. You're blessed in having that. That's what I
love about having my son in my life. He's been a wonder to watch
grow and he grows me up daily. He's the best teacher I have ever
known. I think children are great for that. When I was married, I
loved my husband dearly, as well. Being in that type of healthy
human relationship is not addiction, it is love.
>
> I play guitar. I like to. Should I stop when I find myself
wanting to play more?
>

> I sing a couple of times a month, with other people. I like it.
It's less boring than NOT singing. It's exciting. I feel really
good afterwards. Why is that not good?
>
***I never said it is not good. Like I said, and I was refering
mainly to TV and to video games and to my self and to my son and how
we handle things and what I have come to understand about these
thing for myself and what he understands about these things for
himself...
I love to sing and dance and my son loves to play piano. Sometimes
it's for a half an hour, sometimes it's for two hours. Sometimes I
like to read for 15 minutes or sometimes I read for four hours if my
eyes can hold out. Those things are not bad and I never said they
are. I said it's personal choice and loving to do something isn't
wrong. Again, I was refering to what my son and I have found to be
true for ourselves and our family. What works best for us. Everyone
is different. Every family is different.

Peace,

Susan


> Sandra
>
>
> Sandra

Fetteroll

on 2/16/05 7:37 PM, Susan Buchholz at bookwood01@... wrote:

> These are just my personal convictions based on my relationship with my son
> and our personal experiences. I know most people wouldn't agree with this nor
> should they have to.

Most lists are for sharing tips and "things that work for our family".

This list is for questioning and discussion of ideas (which includes
examining personal convictions.)

When it comes down to it *what* we do as unschoolers isn't as important as
*why* we do it and how we go about it.

There may be families who have no TV because they've all decided they prefer
not to have TV for whatever reason.

There are definitely families who have no TV because the parents think
that's best for the family.

The underlying issue for unschooling isn't TV or no TV. The underlying
principle is how we treat each other. How we can respectfully handle
situations when our wants clash with each other.

If the whole family has mutually decided, without the kids being pressured
by the parents to make the "right" decision, that they don't want TV, then
they're respecting each other in a decision.

If the parents decide they don't want TV for the family, then the parents
wants are overriding the children's. There are much better, more respectful,
more joyful solutions than getting rid of the TV.

> He actually says that the high action and the suspense and thrill of the
> game is addicting to him. It provides the excitment he's looking for instead
> of just plain old daily life. He says it gives him a fun place to escape to
> when life is boring. Whether that can be deemed as bad or not is a personal
> decision.

If you were to replace "game" with "alcohol" in the above paragraph would it
feel right to you?

While we can be deeply involved in games and books and TV shows and hobbies
to the point where even taking a break to get something to eat is an
annoyance ;-), they aren't addictions.

And while people can use the above to escape from life, the things aren't
the cause of the escape. They are a symptom -- or self-medication.
Eliminating the symptom or solution doesn't make the problem go away.

If it doesn't seem right to treat two things as the same thing -- like
alcohol and video games -- then it's helpful to see their differences and
their similarities to other things we may see in a more positive light --
like reading and video games.

> When we took the tv out of our home (we went without tv for six years) we both
> went through a huge adjustment period. ... But then we
> started reading more and together every night and throughout the day,

While people may find happy lives without TV, there isn't a respectful way
to impose no TV on the rest of the family. No matter how right it feels to
one person, imposing a solution on others never feels respectful. How would
it feel if the kids decided the family should be pursuing more creative
outlets so no more reading books. And so they gave away all your books even
the ones you were right in the middle of, threw out your library card and
forbid you to read feeling you should be doing something more creative with
your time like writing your own book?

The focus on this list is on finding ways to have closer happier family
lives *without* imposing a parent chosen solution, e.g., get rid of the TV.
How to have happier lives while respecting everyone's -- not just the mom's
or the dad's -- wants and needs.

> But then we started reading more and together every night and throughout the
> day, biking, playing games, talking, drawing,coming up with creative ways to
> spend our time, and spend time in solitude to think/meditate, etc...

There are ways to get to that without throwing out the TV. While my husband,
daughter and I all watch TV in the evening with dinner, we also do other
things during the week. Unschooling homes should have a variety of things
going on and available to choose. Not all kids will choose a variety but we
need to make sure its available and attractive to them.

Joyce

[email protected]

Responses should be to all readers of the list, not to individuals. It's a really big list (1634 or so this morning).

When a parent says "we think" and "He and I agree" and "to us it was clear..." and such statements, I wonder whether the child, especially if he's pretty young, is not just agreeing with his mom, or if the mom is assuming agreement, and then assuming that the child agrees in all ways.

-=-We found ourselves, a lot of times, just sitting and
laughing, talking a little on the comercials, and then when it was
over, we had spent that time not interacting with one another but . . .=

But you had a shared experience, a happy experience, and that IS interaction. And for years to come you can connect other ideas, statements, music, visuals or moral questions to that movie or show you had seen. The way people build their own internal grid of information is to compare and contrast and connect and remember all kinds of things in relationship to other things. Analogies and historical context depend on people having shared experiences, whether literature, art, music/lyrics, humor, characters (Jung's archetypes, which are in fairy tales but in other movies and stories too)...

-=-For us it's a different type of thing that happens with books. We
read to each other. That to us feels like participation. I'm not
saying that is how it works for other people. I'm sure lots of
people can get that from TV, but we don't.-=-

Some people are more visual than others, but movies are not just visual. They accommodate several "learning styles" and use many stimuli at once.


-=-When we watch a movie
together, we have a good time. It's our time to escape for a little
while and watch someone else, but we can't do it often . . .=

It's not "escape" if you're still there, together in your house, is it? And if it's a good time AND there are things to learn, I can't see why it should be considered a thing to be avoided.


Sandra

nellebelle

>>>> and in this particular discussion someone made the argument that TV was addictive and that's why the parent limited viewing.>>>>>

I think adults who refer to their child's activities as "addictive" only say that for things that they are uncomfortable with.

I've never heard anyone say that their child is addicted to doing chores or riding their bicycle or any activity that the parent thinks is a *better* use of the child's time. They are more likely to say that the child LOVES to ride the bicycle and see that as a good thing.

I'm not sure what it takes to help those adults see that TV is an object, a tool, a legitimate choice, not an evil addictive mind sucking entity.

You could try to apply logic to their arguments against TV. On a local hs list, someone wrote in that TV is bad because Waldorf says so. They gave more detail and some quotes. Waldorf is believed by many to be an expert on early childhood education, so if Waldorf says TV is bad for young children, it must be so, right? Wrong. This is the fallacy of the expert - using a well known name to back up something being true. Just because Waldorf has theories about early child ed, it doesn't mean that they are experts on technology and its impact on children.

The poster also said that (according to Waldorf) TV/video decreases creativity in children. Where is there ANY evidence of decreased creativity? How do we measure creativity? Were there studies? If so, were they valid? Was there a control group? Was the effect long term? Or did they just ask some parents if their children were less creative after watching TV, then declare it so? In Marie Winn's anti-TV book, she uses parent's observations as evidence throughout the book. "Johnny comes home from preschool and stares zombie-like at the TV". Well, gee, there's *proof* that TV turns kids into zombies! If the child spent hours in the sandbox or reading, you can bet those parents would not be saying that sandboxes and books turn kids into zombies.

Mary Ellen

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

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 17, 2005, at 6:12 AM, Fetteroll wrote:

>> When we took the tv out of our home (we went without tv for six
>> years) we both
>> went through a huge adjustment period. ... But then we
>> started reading more and together every night and throughout the day,
>
> While people may find happy lives without TV, there isn't a respectful
> way
> to impose no TV on the rest of the family. No matter how right it
> feels to
> one person, imposing a solution on others never feels respectful.

Although I agree with Joyce about 99.9 percent of the way - I do think
there is one aspect of TV that makes it a bit different and requires
some extra thought.

If my husband is sitting and reading a book in our living room, it
doesn't impact me - I can still be in there and read or sew or play a
game with one of the kids or have a quiet conversation or whatever. But
when he's watching tv, then a huge big giant part of our house is sort
of "taken up" with noise and visuals and I often feel relegated to my
bedroom, to get away from it. If my husband is watching tv and somebody
is playing video games in our bedroom, then I've even been known to go
sit in the car to get away from the noise for a while.

This is a function of the set-up of our house and we're going to take
care of that by remodeling, one of these days. But, anyway, it is a
consideration - tv watching and video game playing can impose a burden
on others who aren't watching or playing - they are visually bright and
distracting and the noise can be annoying and intrusive.

It is one of those things that families have to work out. But we can't
live in our house with a default that everybody watches tv, plays video
games, and listens to music whenever they feel like it for themselves,
not thinking of other people's comfort levels.

Roxana and I are the ones who want far more quiet - we would like to
sit in the living room with the rest of our family, reading a book,
talking, playing a game, doing other things, without the tv going, far
more often than we get right now. I'd like to sit there without music
going, sometimes at least. I'm often on overload from the noise level
because I live in a family where any moment of silence (no tv, no
stereo, no video games) seems to be immediately filled by someone
singing at the top of their voice.

I'm not concerned about "too much tv" because I think it is bad for my
kids - we're way beyond that kind of thinking - they watch tv like they
read - for all kinds of reasons - fun and enjoyment, learning, to veg
out, to be stimulated - all KINDS of reasons, all perfectly valid.

But I do think it has other impacts on a household and there are things
to learn in terms of being considerate and thoughtful about it's impact
on other people and on the overall atmosphere of the home. I've been in
homes where everybody just does everything with a tv going - cartoons
blasting, a talk show going, whatever - and they just have it on and
carry on with life. I can't do that, myself. I can't keep my
concentration, it is a struggle, and my brain gets tired.

Someone who hasn't had tv for most of a child's life, and suddenly gets
it, will not have learned how to handle it and I could see why they'd
just give up and get rid of it. Even in my family where we've always
had a tv and we all watch and enjoy it, I find it is one of the more
difficult issues in terms of family dynamics. We manage - and we
definitely enjoy it a lot. But I have some sympathy with someone
bringing in tv after not having it.

In our case, it is my husband who is more likely to be watching tv - he
watches far more than the rest of us put together and is more likely to
be channel surfing, just wanting to watch something, while the rest of
us tend more often to have particular things we want to watch.
(Interestingly, my husband had NO tv at all until he was 12 years old.)

-pam

bookwood01

I answered this in post if you all don't mind scrolling down through
the message.


--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> Responses should be to all readers of the list, not to
individuals. It's a really big list (1634 or so this morning).
>
*** Sorry about that. I'm used to the other groups I belong to and
we address each other individually at times but the posts are still
considered open to everyone to read and comment on.

> When a parent says "we think" and "He and I agree" and "to us it
was clear..." and such statements, I wonder whether the child,
especially if he's pretty young, is not just agreeing with his mom,
or if the mom is assuming agreement, and then assuming that the
child agrees in all ways.


***Is this to say that people cannot used the word "we" when it
comes to thinking alike? Cannot people be in agreement with one
another? There are certainly many, many areas my son and I do not
agree on. Many times there are some really excellent debates that
happen in this house (exhausting though, as they can be). They are
wonderful when they happen. It is encouraged in our house to
explore, find out what is right for yourself, but always, always
talk with each other about it. Debate it and then, still the final
decision is made on your own. Sometimes we agree on certain things
but for totally different reasons.

I think that if begin to become afraid of things said
like "we", "us", etc... it may be splitting hairs over minor
details. I'm not talking about a major organization assuming to
speak for thousands (or even twenty) employees. I'm talking about a
family that sits down once per week to have heart to hearts and find
out what is going on in each others minds and hearts. All is said on
one's mind, no one is allowed to interupt or make their opinions
known until it all said and done... and then when the opinions are
to be made, it is clear whose opinion it is. Discussion and
understanding of one another is something we hold dear in this house
and while he pursues vary different religious ideas and social ideas
than I do (which can cause an amazing amount of drive time to
various places on certain days of the week), there is total respect
and curiousity for each others beliefs and ideas. We don't feel
threatened to disagree or agree. It has always been that way for us
and will continue to be so long as we're open to each other and open
to hearing the ideas of each other and other people around us. It
doesn't mean we will agree... a lot of times we don't... but it does
mean healthy debate, growth (even if painful) and challenge. We is
just a way of saying more than one person as is "us" or "he and I".
I'm sure you all must have moments of agreement with your families.
I'm sure of it.

>
> -=-We found ourselves, a lot of times, just sitting and
> laughing, talking a little on the comercials, and then when it was
> over, we had spent that time not interacting with one another
but . . .=
>
> But you had a shared experience, a happy experience, and that IS
interaction. And for years to come you can connect other ideas,
statements, music, visuals or moral questions to that movie or show
you had seen. The way people build their own internal grid of
information is to compare and contrast and connect and remember all
kinds of things in relationship to other things. Analogies and
historical context depend on people having shared experiences,
whether literature, art, music/lyrics, humor, characters (Jung's
archetypes, which are in fairy tales but in other movies and stories
too)...

>
*** Yes, this is true. But we share more fun and what "I" consider
more meaningful interaction when we do other things than watch TV.
Yes, it is interaction and yes we do discuss things afterwards. It's
just that my choice, and from what he tells me and shows me by his
daily actions, his choice is that he prefers our books, bike ride
conversations and other times because we talk more intensly, hash
things out and argue over, even, compared to when watching the
television set.
Oh and definately, we all make connections between the relationship
of various life situations/circumstances/people/ideas/ from a wide
variety of sources. Absolutely. And some people, including my son,
are more visual thinkers. I am too. I think in pictures. My son gets
inspiration from several sources and some of it has been tv and
movies. So have I. Just because in our home the tv is on very little
and we only see movies occassionally doesn't mean we are void of it
completely. We just use the tv and movies less than we use other
sources. We do see plays, musicals, and concerts. We use those. Like
we saw the play about the Delany sisters, "Having Our Say". It was
incredible. We read their books as well. We use a lot of music, art,
tons of humor, and story telling in our daily lives.
> -=-


For us it's a different type of thing that happens with books. We
> read to each other. That to us feels like participation. I'm not
> saying that is how it works for other people. I'm sure lots of
> people can get that from TV, but we don't.-=-
>
> Some people are more visual than others, but movies are not just
visual. They accommodate several "learning styles" and use many
stimuli at once.
>
>
> -=-When we watch a movie
> together, we have a good time. It's our time to escape for a
little
> while and watch someone else, but we can't do it often . . .=
>
> It's not "escape" if you're still there, together in your house,
is it? And if it's a good time AND there are things to learn, I
can't see why it should be considered a thing to be avoided.


*** I didn't mean "escape" in the sense that we are unaware of each
other sitting beside or across from one another. We are
definately "there". We just usually watch movies as a form of
entertainment with the understanding that Hollywood, Disney and such
have some very different ideas of what actually happens or happened
in the lives of the people they may be about. When we read the
autobiographies, it is fantastic to see the reality in the
situations. These bigger than life depictions of people's lives are
fun, are sometimes profound and do stir up some conversation, but
when it comes to really understanding something or someone, I
believe it takes a lot more than a show.

If that is what I am conveying to my son, that's okay. Because, if
you live around people, you convey messages to them all the time.
And each person has ideals, has values, and an ethical system by
which they operate. If my son didn't agree with me, I can tell you
for sure, I'd be the first one to know in no uncertain terms. He's
quite vocal and doesn't let folks, not even Mom, tell him what to
think. He might consider something, but he won't make it part of his
philosophy on life if it doesn't fit him. Hense the video games and
video game design class. He wanted it, I don't like video games all
that much... well, too bad, Mom. I do. Cool. It's yours. When I say
we agree on something, I actually mean, we. If it wasn't we, I'd
know it and so would he. He's got Asperger's Syndrome. If he thinks
something, he says it point blank to anyone. He's always honest,
doesn't understand lies (thank Heavens) and always tells me what he
thinks... about everything. I'm sure if someone else in here has an
Asperger's child, they will know what I'm talking about. LOL... you
gotta be prepared for the roof blowing off if my son doesn't think
his thoughts and desires are not being honored!
>

Peace to you all,

Susan
>
> Sandra

[email protected]

-= Waldorf is believed by many to be an expert on early childhood education,-=-

And that's goofy anyway.
Steiner wasn't an educator nor a psychologist.
He wasn't an expert.

And the schools are based on some exceedingly stranger "principles" pulled out of pretty much nowhere. It's not even expert. It's really random stuff based on fantasy in more ways than one.

-=- Just because Waldorf has theories about early child ed, it doesn't mean that they are experts on technology and its impact on children.
-=-

Not experts on early childhood ed, either.

-=-The poster also said that (according to Waldorf) TV/video decreases creativity in children. Where is there ANY evidence of decreased creativity? How do we measure creativity? Were there studies?-=-

Maybe by "creativity" they mean thinking the Waldorf "truths" make sense, and being sufficiently ignorant of the real world that the Waldorf gnomes seem cooler than Ninja Turtles or whatever.

-="Johnny comes home from preschool and stares zombie-like at the TV". Well, gee, there's *proof* that TV turns kids into zombies! If the child spent hours in the sandbox or reading, you can bet those parents would not be saying that sandboxes and books turn kids into zombies.
-=-

And yet school's ideal child is a zombie who can sit in a desk for 50 minutes without wiggling or disrupting or being distracted. And just as with REAL zombies, they can achieve that with drugs if the kids aren't pre-zombified.

Sandra

Heidi

Just wanted to jump in this thread and say, I have known someone who
would choose TV over just about any other thing: My dad.

He went to work every day, and came home at night, and watched TV.
Ate dinner, then back to the TV. We didn't do much as a family,
besides watch TV, but that was because my dad wanted to watch TV. My
mom has been wistful that daddy never played cards with her...well, I
don't remember her taking any of us kids to another area and playing
games. SHE watched, right along with him. Since the parents let
themselves be pulled in, the whole family had TV as a very major
component, if not THE major component, of our home life. Of COURSE we
had other things, including camping in the summer and assorted sports
and lessons, but as a family, generally, our main activity was TV
watching.

For a few years after he retired, Daddy got a lot worse, with him
sitting downstairs pretty much all day, watching TV. (sounds sort of
like deschooling, eh?_) then my nephew was born four years ago, who
was the best thing that ever happened for my dad: they adored each
other, and he started doing things like cookie baking and coloring
and sitting upstairs to visit...between TV shows! He also joined the
Eagles, which opened up his social life a bit. So, for the last five
years or so of his life, my dad had more than JUST TV, but I'd say
for a lot of his adult life, television viewing was a huge part of
his daily life.

I also think he was depression prone, and I know he wasn't very
social by nature, which may have added to the absorption in TV. If
he'd been more outgoing, or higher energy, he probably would have had
many more outside interests.

In observing our own family with TV, the kids acted "zombie-like"
whenever we were at a home with TV...we didn't have cable or
satellite, only videos, for ten years...now that we have satellite,
the kids turn off the TV on their own sometimes. They're honing their
discrimination skills, choosing shows they like and KNOWING THE
REASONS they like them, and ignoring the shows they don't like. They
aren't addicted, nor are they like zombies. And we watch quite a bit
of TV, along with a lot of other things.

Blessings, HeidiC

Susan Buchholz

I think it boils down to the way the word "addiction" is being used. I honestly think it means something from a passing word more intended to mean "he really likes it a lot" to the defintion in the dictionaries we read. I think it's a personal and a family choice. I have heard people say someone is addicted to work or to music or to mazes, believe it or not. I think, from what I have read and talked about with others on the discussion of TV, the issue is the amount of time a person spends in front of it rather than pursuing a hobby or getting enough exercise or spending time with other people or developing a sense of self in quiet. I also believe that interests can happen in spurts for various reasons. Like someone goes through a tv watching period and then gets into a book reading period, or a lego building period and that's just where they are right then. Again, I think it's personal and must be decided from person to person and from family to family. I doubt truly, there is any
one right or wrong answer here. I think it is totally based on what each person believes and experiences to be true.
Peace,
Susan


nellebelle <nellebelle@...> wrote:
>>>> and in this particular discussion someone made the argument that TV was addictive and that's why the parent limited viewing.>>>>>

I think adults who refer to their child's activities as "addictive" only say that for things that they are uncomfortable with.

I've never heard anyone say that their child is addicted to doing chores or riding their bicycle or any activity that the parent thinks is a *better* use of the child's time. They are more likely to say that the child LOVES to ride the bicycle and see that as a good thing.

I'm not sure what it takes to help those adults see that TV is an object, a tool, a legitimate choice, not an evil addictive mind sucking entity.

You could try to apply logic to their arguments against TV. On a local hs list, someone wrote in that TV is bad because Waldorf says so. They gave more detail and some quotes. Waldorf is believed by many to be an expert on early childhood education, so if Waldorf says TV is bad for young children, it must be so, right? Wrong. This is the fallacy of the expert - using a well known name to back up something being true. Just because Waldorf has theories about early child ed, it doesn't mean that they are experts on technology and its impact on children.

The poster also said that (according to Waldorf) TV/video decreases creativity in children. Where is there ANY evidence of decreased creativity? How do we measure creativity? Were there studies? If so, were they valid? Was there a control group? Was the effect long term? Or did they just ask some parents if their children were less creative after watching TV, then declare it so? In Marie Winn's anti-TV book, she uses parent's observations as evidence throughout the book. "Johnny comes home from preschool and stares zombie-like at the TV". Well, gee, there's *proof* that TV turns kids into zombies! If the child spent hours in the sandbox or reading, you can bet those parents would not be saying that sandboxes and books turn kids into zombies.

Mary Ellen

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



"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today!

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

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 17, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Susan Buchholz wrote:

> I think it boils down to the way the word "addiction" is being used.

It isn't a positive thing though - for someone to be called "addicted"
to anything.

It implies that the person doesn't have control over him/herself.

It is used in relation to television a lot and it has the implication
that tv is, in fact, addicting, that children (and/or adults) lose
control of themselves and can't help but watch it.

I just don't think that's a useful way of thinking about it. I can see
why people who do think about it that way make the decision to just get
rid of it or to have set time limits. I can see why they have to have a
family meeting and make a joint decision to "control" it, etc. If you
think it is addictive and that the kids "can't" control themselves when
watching it - then what else could you do?

So the term "addictive" sort of leads to certain ways of responding to
it.

I changed the way I thought about tv - I had an "aha moment" and
realized how much my husband really really loved watching it - and that
I was thinking of him as a sort of "tv-addict." When I changed my own
way of thinking about it - inside my own head - it changed a lot of
things for us. I think of it as something my husband loves - it is a
POSITIVE thing.

Now it is no different than my 17 yo singing her musical theater songs
around the house. It is all good. But some of it is loud and so the
noise is something we have to work out together.

-pam

[email protected]

-=-when it comes to really understanding something or someone, I
believe it takes a lot more than a show. -=-

Sure. And more than a book, or an in-person interview. People don't quit learning their whole lives.

-=-When we read the
autobiographies, it is fantastic to see the reality in the
situations. These bigger than life depictions of people's lives are
fun,-=-

A book about a person isn't bigger than the person's life. A book about Ray Charles would leave out a big part of his life. The current biography has the Big Thing: the music.


-=-If that is what I am conveying to my son, that's okay. -=-

Sure, but when you convey, he agrees, you say that makes it "we" and you encourage others here to consider controlling video games and to limit TV to half hour a day, it's not helping them get closer to unschooling.

Sandra

Fetteroll

on 2/17/05 1:15 PM, bookwood01 at bookwood01@... wrote:

> Is this to say that people cannot used the word "we" when it
> comes to thinking alike?

The list is more useful when we talk about broad ideas that can help many
people -- and then use specific examples from our lives to support them.

One example of a broad idea is discussing the idea of someone (anyone, in
general) using "we" when a parent may actually mean "I". Discussing it can
be an "aha" moment to a parent who isn't aware they're doing that.

If you don't do that, then you can pass that idea right by.

But I think you're taking the discussion to be too much about your
particular situation. It shouldn't be. The discussion should be about the
ideas you're bringing up or raising in others.

Your idea is: take away the TV and you'll find time together is of higher
quality.

Yes, I know you're just tossing it out there because it worked for you and
you're not saying it's for everyone or that anyone or everyone should agree.

*BUT* -- and it's a Big But! ;-) -- this particular list is *for* discussing
broad ideas, not for trading "Here's what works for us" tips. It's for
discussion why something works and how it works and how it fits in with a
philosophy of mutual respect.

As a *general piece of advice* what you suggest won't work because it's
foundation is disrespect. Disrespect is liable to yield resentment and
anger.

So if we break what you did down to examine why and how it works ... well
there isn't anything to break down really. It's just "take away the TV". The
reason what you did worked isn't in the idea of taking away the TV. It's in
your relationship and personalities -- which doesn't transfer along with
"Take away the TV" idea! ;-)

It worked for you *not* because disrespect works but because of your unique
environment and unique personalities. Perhaps your son is very aware of his
feelings and the effects of his environment on him. And perhaps because your
communication with each other is attuned. But without that -- or whatever it
was -- a practice that is essentially disrespectul is going to fail
miserably as a general piece of advice. The success of your solution is
based on your son's personality and your personality.

So without all the other stuff that's unique to your environment "take away
the TV" won't work as a general piece of advice. It's much more useful to
discuss ideas that aren't personality dependent.

If you'd like to discuss ideas that aren't personality dependent, like
communication, mutually respectful discussion, that might be helpful to many
people. :-)

Joyce

Susan Buchholz

This is, no offense to anyone, the most helpful post about this subject yet... for me at least. Pam, I think you really made it very clear and what you said makes a whole lot of sense. I wrote more... scroll plllleeeaase... :-) (son is with grandmother for a few... ha ha! I have more time!!!)

Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:

On Feb 17, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Susan Buchholz wrote:

> I think it boils down to the way the word "addiction" is being used.

It isn't a positive thing though - for someone to be called "addicted"
to anything.

It implies that the person doesn't have control over him/herself.

***This is excellent. I like what you've said above and further down. So, when using the term addictive, it does have negative implications. I think when used so passingly, one could loose the sense of the actual meaning.

It is used in relation to television a lot and it has the implication
that tv is, in fact, addicting, that children (and/or adults) lose
control of themselves and can't help but watch it.

I just don't think that's a useful way of thinking about it. I can see
why people who do think about it that way make the decision to just get
rid of it or to have set time limits. I can see why they have to have a
family meeting and make a joint decision to "control" it, etc. If you
think it is addictive and that the kids "can't" control themselves when
watching it - then what else could you do?

***Oh, our family meetings are about everything. Does anyone here really have family meetings just over the television?

So the term "addictive" sort of leads to certain ways of responding to
it.

I changed the way I thought about tv - I had an "aha moment" and
realized how much my husband really really loved watching it - and that
I was thinking of him as a sort of "tv-addict." When I changed my own
way of thinking about it - inside my own head - it changed a lot of
things for us. I think of it as something my husband loves - it is a
POSITIVE thing.

***When I wrote of not having the tv any longer, I really was talking personally about us. Not anyone else. Since we barely ever watch it, found it not satisfying to ourselves, and we'd be wasting money on it come my birthday if my sister decided to not make that her next birthday present to me (and she'd be wasting money on it for us on my next birthday if she did!), it would be best not to have it. We'd still have the video games... but no tv channels.

Now it is no different than my 17 yo singing her musical theater songs
around the house. It is all good. But some of it is loud and so the
noise is something we have to work out together.

-pam


I know the feeling of a singer in the house. My son is always singing from morning til night. (He sings in his sleep sometimes!) And the piano is a favorite. He plays whenever he takes a break from doing whatever and then he plays (inevitably right before bed) for about an hour at night. He loves it.

Peace,
Susan



"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com





---------------------------------


Yahoo! Groups Links


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

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

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




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

Susan Buchholz

Thanks for this. I think it was very helpful to me understanding the message board here better. I do belong to a few different groups and this one is run quite different than what I am used to. I apologize for not understanding that so well. I will keep it in mind. I sometimes take things quite literally. I also am just scared beyond belief about some tests I have to have tomorrow and I think I was intensly focusing "away" from thinking about it... this gave me something good to think about and really hash out instead of sitting stewing about "oh, this is going to hurt, and that test might show this...", and "I don't know if I'm going to be released after the tests tomorrow". They've kept me before. Oh boy.

Anyway, I think communication on line can be very difficult. Don't you? I mean, it's words typed on the computer without the person there to see and hear you.Something huge gets lost in the translation. I know I will probably be guilty quite frequently of leaving something out that needs to be in for understanding not realizing I'd done that.


Susan

Fetteroll <fetteroll@...> wrote:
on 2/17/05 1:15 PM, bookwood01 at bookwood01@... wrote:

> Is this to say that people cannot used the word "we" when it
> comes to thinking alike?

The list is more useful when we talk about broad ideas that can help many
people -- and then use specific examples from our lives to support them.

One example of a broad idea is discussing the idea of someone (anyone, in
general) using "we" when a parent may actually mean "I". Discussing it can
be an "aha" moment to a parent who isn't aware they're doing that.

If you don't do that, then you can pass that idea right by.

But I think you're taking the discussion to be too much about your
particular situation. It shouldn't be. The discussion should be about the
ideas you're bringing up or raising in others.

Your idea is: take away the TV and you'll find time together is of higher
quality.

Yes, I know you're just tossing it out there because it worked for you and
you're not saying it's for everyone or that anyone or everyone should agree.

*BUT* -- and it's a Big But! ;-) -- this particular list is *for* discussing
broad ideas, not for trading "Here's what works for us" tips. It's for
discussion why something works and how it works and how it fits in with a
philosophy of mutual respect.

As a *general piece of advice* what you suggest won't work because it's
foundation is disrespect. Disrespect is liable to yield resentment and
anger.

So if we break what you did down to examine why and how it works ... well
there isn't anything to break down really. It's just "take away the TV". The
reason what you did worked isn't in the idea of taking away the TV. It's in
your relationship and personalities -- which doesn't transfer along with
"Take away the TV" idea! ;-)

It worked for you *not* because disrespect works but because of your unique
environment and unique personalities. Perhaps your son is very aware of his
feelings and the effects of his environment on him. And perhaps because your
communication with each other is attuned. But without that -- or whatever it
was -- a practice that is essentially disrespectul is going to fail
miserably as a general piece of advice. The success of your solution is
based on your son's personality and your personality.

So without all the other stuff that's unique to your environment "take away
the TV" won't work as a general piece of advice. It's much more useful to
discuss ideas that aren't personality dependent.

If you'd like to discuss ideas that aren't personality dependent, like
communication, mutually respectful discussion, that might be helpful to many
people. :-)

Joyce



"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com



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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

Pam Sorooshian

On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Fetteroll wrote:

> Your idea is: take away the TV and you'll find time together is of
> higher
> quality.

She didn't say that. She said she and her son together decided that
they didn't want to watch it, that they'd like life better when they
didn't have it.

But - it is important to note that that is the way that many people
probably understood it, whether that was the intended meaning or not.
>
> Yes, I know you're just tossing it out there because it worked for you
> and
> you're not saying it's for everyone or that anyone or everyone should
> agree.
>
Tossed out there means it is up for discussion - THAT is in our list
posting policies. Anything tossed out here is fair game for analysis,
for sure.

> *BUT* -- and it's a Big But! ;-) -- this particular list is *for*
> discussing
> broad ideas, not for trading "Here's what works for us" tips. It's for
> discussion why something works and how it works and how it fits in
> with a
> philosophy of mutual respect.

Right.
>
> As a *general piece of advice* what you suggest won't work because it's
> foundation is disrespect. Disrespect is liable to yield resentment and
> anger.

I think what was tossed out there was that parent and child decided
together to stop watching so much tv.

I honestly don't see the disrespect there.

The issue it brings up for me is how a parent and child can have such
discussions without the parent's personal preferences and biases
overwhelming those of a small child. That seems tricky to me - I've
heard kids spout off about tv, call it the boob tube and talk about how
THEY wouldn't want to sit in front of the tv all day like zombies,
etc., and I know they didn't come up with that themselves, they heard
it from their parents.

-pam

Fetteroll

on 2/17/05 6:24 PM, Pam Sorooshian at pamsoroosh@... wrote:

> I think what was tossed out there was that parent and child decided
> together to stop watching so much tv.

The orignal post wasn't clear:

>> When we took the tv out of our home (we went without tv for six years) we
>> both went through a huge adjustment period.

But if it is two people deciding together to do something, then it's no
longer really about TV. It's about ... deciding together to do something --
anything! -- and then the process of working through it.

Is going without TV a useful topic?

If kids decide to go without or the whole family decides to ... then it's
not about TV. It's just basic unschooling to help kids try whatever they
want to test out.

If parents decide to go without then it gets into why. Why would no TV be a
good idea for unschooling families? It might be an individual decision for a
particular family -- similar to what church they decide to go to -- but it
isn't really about unschooling, is it?

I think more useful would be to talk about the problems that have lead up to
the parents deciding the no TV solution sounds like a good one rather than
discussing how the parents can impose a no TV solution on the family.

Or am I missing something?

Joyce

[email protected]

-=-I think what was tossed out there was that parent and child decided
together to stop watching so much tv.

-=-I honestly don't see the disrespect there.-=-

I believe later on there was mention of a one-hour limit, and definitely talk of having to limit video games.

Sandra

julie w

Pam Sorooshian wrote:

>
> But
> when he's watching tv, then a huge big giant part of our house is sort
> of "taken up" with noise and visuals and I often feel relegated to my
> bedroom, to get away from it.

That can be a problem for me at times, even though I can read and watch
tv at the same time, so what I did was put a sofa in the kitchen.
I now can sit in there away from most of the noise, but not in a room
far away from where they are so I can still comment when a conversation
occurs.
Yes I said a sofa in the kitchen. No table, a sofa.
We hardly ever ate in the kitchen, or even at the table, so I moved the
table into the "bookroom" (dining room where all the stuff is that has
never been used as a dining room) and now if we do sit at the table to
eat we are actually in the dining room.
I like the comment you made Pam about realizing who much enjoyment your
husband got from tv. That was a place I had to come to also. Just like
he accepts I find enjoyment on the computer and reading, I now accept
that he does truly enjoy watching tv and movies...its his thing.
He could be out fishing, hunting or playing golf.
I'd rather he be at home watching tv with his son.
Now if I could just get the men in my house to turn off the thing when
they leave the room....
Julie w in AR



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

jenneferh2000

> It's important to distinguish between habits and addiction.

This is important.

My partner 'jokes' that Sebastian is 'addicted' to watching videos.
Just today I asked him to at least use the word habit instead of
addiction.

Addiction absolutely has a negative conotation. At least habits can
be described as either good or bad. Why is this as the definitions
of addiction and habit have similarities.

To reiterate-

Def. of addict (& its forms.. addicted, addicting, addicts,
addiction, addictive...): To devote or give (oneself) HABITUALLY or
compulsively; One who is addicted, esp. to narcotics; A devoted fan

In comparison-

Def. of habit: A constant, often unconscious inclination to perform
an act, acquired through its frequent repetition. An established
disposition of the mind or character. Customary manner or practice.
AN ADDICTION. Physical constitution. Characteristic appearance,
form, or manner of growth, esp. of a plant.

And just for fun-

Def. of ritual: The prescribed form or order of conducting a
religious or solemn ceremony. A body of ceremonies or rites, as
those used in a church or fraternal organization. A ceremonial act
or a series of such acts. The performance of such acts. A detailed
method of procedure faithfully or regularly follwed.

(*all caps are mine)

I guess then, the question would be when does something become an
addiction? Or, what is truly an addiction? When we have physical
withdrawls? When it creates a negative or damaging chemical reaction
in our bodies? When we can not live without something? When
that 'thing' prevents us from functioning in a healthy manner? What
is the criteria for something to be labeled as addicting?

It seems like the word 'addiction' must be over/mis-used!

Thanks for all the comments.

Jennefer in Oregon

jenneferh2000

> First, An addiction is anything that creates a dependency in the
person participating in the action.

Some of us are dependent on gasoline to drive cars.
I'm dependent on my partner's paycheck to pay the rent.
All on this list are dependent on air to live.

Why aren't there positive or even nuetral addictions, then?
Must we invent a new term, like 'unschooling'?

> It's done without really thinking about it.

My son is definately thinking when he expresses that he wants to
watch a video. He's definately engaging his brain when he picks out
the right movie he wants to watch, and operates the entire system to
put it on. (He's 3.)

Yet still people (even unschoolers!) will caution that it could
become addicting, if it isn't already.

> Anything can become addicting.

If this were true, it would be a miracle that we are all still alive!
How do you distinguish between a harmful addiction and an intense
interest or frequent habit?

Jennefer in Oregon

nellebelle

>>>>Just today I asked him to at least use the word habit instead of addiction>>>>>

Why not simply say it is something he likes to do, if anything needs to be said about it at all?

Mary Ellen

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

jenneferh2000

> -= Waldorf is believed by many to be an expert on early childhood
education,-=-

> Steiner wasn't an educator nor a psychologist.

Nor did he have any children!

I recently visited an Alternative Education Fair at our library and
was quite offended by the Waldorf School's 'Application for Interview
for Preschool and Kindergarten'. These are some questions on their
application that may be useful information, but still seemed quite
offensive to me. I would refuse to even apply to the school based
upon the application questions alone. (Not that I was considering it
anyway!)

These are some examples:

Religious or spiritual affiliation
Is the child adopted?
Is the child living with both parents?
If no, please explain.
Other adults living in the same home?
Is there a television in the home?
Estimated hours used weekly by child: TV_________ Computer______
What is your child's betime? Weekdays___________ Weekends_______
Are there any physical characteristics that might require special
attention?
If yes, please explain:
Would you consider your child to have been underactive, normally
active or overactive as an infant?
Anything unusual in your child's development? (please include
accidents, injuries, traumas, etc.):
How is your child socially with peers?
Any learning problems you are aware of?

There is a note on the bottom of the application that 'All
information will be kept confidential.')

Eek gads I thought after reading the application! Wouldn't they be
horrified to read my responses!

Jennefer in Oregon

jenneferh2000

> I think adults who refer to their child's activities as "addictive"
only say that for things that they are uncomfortable with.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. My friend who labels TV as
addictive claims herself to have been addicted to it as a child. I
honestly think her experience (of depression?) has made her paranoid
that her son will have the same ill experiences with TV. She's made
the choice for him. He hasn't made the choice for himself. Of
course she would argue that there are choices she needs to make for
him as a responsible parent. She'd need to protect him from
unhealthy choices. Her son is almost 4, and she does consider her
family to be unschooling.

Jennefer in Oregon
(catching up with all the posts...)

[email protected]

In a message dated 2/17/2005 10:13:39 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
jenneferh2000@... writes:

Other adults living in the same home?
Is there a television in the home?



==============

There was an uber-Christian thing a few years back... Gott-something?
They had an application and then an agreement the families had to sign (it
was a homeschooling course) that had questions like that about rock and roll
and other adults living in the house. Those were wrong answers. The children
were not to have other influences (or something) than the mother who was in
obedience to the father who signed the contract, I think. And they were not
to even allow Christian rock in the house (once they got into the agreement)
because it was as evilly sexually Satanic as any other rock. (I'm
paraphrasing the words but not the intent.)

Sandra


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