Retta

My kids, 10 and 15 have tv freedom. I talk to the 10yo about things that I feel necessary, but that trust factor takes over in the end. I trust that she's working something out that I don't know or understand at that moment. I think they sometimes want to see how awful people can treat each other at a safe distance and live vicariously.

They both watch more than I would like, lots of days we (thier dad and I) ask them to turn it off so we can have some quiet. That is about us and what our need is at the moment rather than a judgement about tv or their behavior. (The tv is placed pretty centrally for when we all want to watch - probably not the best place for it.)

Tv lowers the brain waves to the pre-sleep state, so things that are going in hypnoticcally and it's really hard to make a conscious choice to turn it off. But afterwards, the 10yo will realize that that isn't how she wants to spend her time and she sees how addicting it can be.

Tv is a series of 600 black dots that light up in sequence over and over. This is damaging to the brain development to children under age 7.

My parents were tv addicts and we "slept" through my childhood with the tv on every waking moment. I still feel sad about that.

Retta



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

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

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/18/03 9:32:11 AM, rettafontana@... writes:

<< Tv is a series of 600 black dots that light up in sequence over and over.
This is damaging to the brain development to children under age 7. >>

Says who?

And what about the computer screen? Same CRT technology, right? Without the
benefit of music an d good acting.

<<Tv lowers the brain waves to the pre-sleep state, so things that are going
in hypnoticcally and it's really hard to make a conscious choice to turn it
off. >>

I've read this in two books, and heard it parotted by "educators," but I
haven't seen it seem true with kids who weren't limited.

I've seen kids dance and talk and run to the other room to get me to show me
something, and if it's hard to make a choice to turn it off, it's for the same
reason it's hard to put a good book down. The mind is engaged, not asleep.

The tests I've read about that some of that "research" was based on was
putting daycare or school kids in a room pointed at a program chosen by the re
searcher, and they were wired up and told "watch this."

It wasn't real kids in the real world making a choice to watch something or
not.

Please don't believe all the research you see which is designed to support
schools' agendas.

For example, Sesame Street: Educational research created Sesame Street for
sound reasons. Also Schoolhouse Rock came out of the same research, and they
were popular AND effective.

Then a few years later, educational reasearch turned on Sesame Street, to try
to blame it for "short attention span," which was bullshit. Sesame Street
was created to make learning easier for kids, theoretically so school would be
easier for them (and thereby success in life, yada yada).

But school had been kinda counting on kids being ignorant. Kids who don't
already KNOW their numbers and letters might possibly sit still for a boring
long lesson. Kids with no other option for learning letters will carve them
out on a wax slate that has to be re-melted on a wood stove that night, but
those days are LONG, long gone, and to rein kids in from cutting edge opportunity
(these days, computer games) is selfish cruelty on the part of adults who
don't want to lose their audience for their lame old-timey presentations.

There never was a uniformly ignorant kindergarten class anyway, but if the
teachers can blame a few parents that's limited. (Parents are told "don't teach
these things at home, because he'll be ahead of the other kids and that's
hard on kids.") But if they can find one big scapegoat like Children's
Television Workshop and heap blame on THEM, a few people get master's degrees or PhDs
for their "research," which gets them out of the classroom and into the
administration, and schools are "better served."

As unschoolers we don't have to buy into their stuff, and that anti-TV
propaganda is part and parcel of their "science."

Sandra

Paula Sjogerman

on 10/18/03 11:12 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:

> << Tv is a series of 600 black dots that light up in sequence over and over.
> This is damaging to the brain development to children under age 7. >>
>
> Says who?
>
> And what about the computer screen? Same CRT technology, right? Without the
> benefit of music an d good acting.
>
> <<Tv lowers the brain waves to the pre-sleep state, so things that are going
> in hypnoticcally and it's really hard to make a conscious choice to turn it
> off. >>
>
> I've read this in two books, and heard it parotted by "educators," but I
> haven't seen it seem true with kids who weren't limited.


I'm an adult and I've experienced this with both the television and the
computer. I can and do turn them off, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't
hard sometimes. I think it's doing some parents a disservice to say that
that their kids might not experience this also. It might not be universally
true for all humans, but it could be true for some.

I'm not advocating big TV limits, but I do think that some people need more
help regulating than others.

Paula

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/18/03 11:01:59 AM, sjogy@... writes:

<< It might not be universally
true for all humans, but it could be true for some. >>

Then the verbs "does" and "is" and "creates" and other such universal verbs
should not ever be used when what "could be true" is "might" and "some" and
"could."

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/18/03 11:01:59 AM, sjogy@... writes:

<< I'm an adult and I've experienced this with both the television and the
computer. I can and do turn them off, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't
hard sometimes. >>

Hard because you're hynotized by 600 black dots, or hard because it's
interesting?

It's hard for me to leave a bar or restaurant where there's live music I'm
enjoying. I don't know if the very next song is going to be one I don't want to
miss.

It's hard for me to leave a restaurant when I'm having fun with friends or
family and there's still anything left in my glass (tea, soda, anything). I'm
not mesmerized, I'm engaged.

I have to force myself to put a book down, lots of times.

I often sit in the car with the radio on until a good stopping place in the
song.

When I visit friends, I'm rarely anxious to go home.

When I get seeds off the morning glory vines (which I've been doing lately,
because first I wanted to give my sister some, and now we're planning to "plan
t" Holly a playhouse next year, a flower-bower), I have a hard time telling
myself "that's the last one, come back tomorrow," and I'm usually right to
stay--I find a few more that would have dumped themselves on the ground by the next
day if I hadn't gotten them.

<<I'm not advocating big TV limits, but I do think that some people need more
help regulating than others.>>

Do you really think television itself is physically holding on to people, and
that it's not their interest in the program or their avoidance of the thing
(whatever it might be) that their mom is wanting them to do instead?

Sandra

nellebelle

We sometime pick peaches or cherries at an orchard near our house. It's really hard for me to stop picking. I always see one more that looks too good to pass up!

Mary Ellen

----- Original Message ----- It's hard for me to leave a bar or restaurant where there's live music I'm enjoying. I don't know if the very next song is going to be one I don't want to miss.

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

Paula Sjogerman

on 10/18/03 12:13 PM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:

> Do you really think television itself is physically holding on to people,


Yes.

I do think there is something about the electronic media themselves. I love
television and movies and the computer, but I have too often watched
something or stayed online past when I really wanted to and not because what
was on the screen was more interesting than what other things awaited me.

This has never happened to me with a book. I will stay up way too late to
finish a great book, but have no problem putting down a book that is boring.

Paula

Fetteroll

on 10/18/03 1:13 PM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:

> Hard because you're hynotized by 600 black dots, or hard because it's
> interesting?

I had problems as a child turning off a show -- even one that I recognized
at the time as pretty low brow like Lost In Space -- in the middle. I needed
to see how it would resolve. But that's engagement and closure.

I remember having a different attitude towards TV when I worked. We really
enjoyed watching reruns during dinner: MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Cheers. They
were comforting and familiar and relaxing and it would have been fine if
they'd gone on all evening. Playing a game was too much effort.

But it wasn't addiction since I have no problems walking away from TV now.

Joyce

averyschmidt

> I do think there is something about the electronic media
themselves. I love
> television and movies and the computer, but I have too often
watched
> something or stayed online past when I really wanted to and not
because what
> was on the screen was more interesting than what other things
awaited me.

You continue to watch tv/stay online past the point that you want to
do so? If I have that right that's pretty interesting.
What was your tv situation like when you were growing up?
Did you have the freedom to watch as much as you wanted to?

> This has never happened to me with a book. I will stay up way too
late to
> finish a great book, but have no problem putting down a book that
is boring.

But you will still watch a tv show you find boring?

Patti, trying to understand

Nanci K.

> But you will still watch a tv show you find boring?
> Patti, trying to understand

Yes it's addictive personality and tendancy. I have the same
problem. I will keep at it till I have a headache or am kicking
myself over the time wasted when I wanted to get something else
done. For me staying away from broadcast tv on the whole is a
better plan, even when I am, say, visiting my parents or something.
Just like it's not a good idea for an alcoholic to hang around with
drinkers or in bars. It's a problem that addicts are made to feel
embarassed about, and told does not exist, and told they are just
making excuses. It is a real problem. I know lots of addicts and
alcoholics and those affected by them. I grew up in a alcoholic
home, and I recognize the tendancies in myself and stay away from
drugs, alcohol and other addictive things that cause problems for
me, like the tv. My husband is a 15 years recovering drug addict
and has problems getting too wrapped up in computer games especially
and has to police himself. Thomas, my older son, has similar issues
and problems. We choose as a family to avoid broadcast tv for this
reason in addition to the behavior affects it was having on Thomas.

Nanci K.

Betsy

<<Tv lowers the brain waves to the pre-sleep state, so things that are
going
in hypnoticcally and it's really hard to make a conscious choice to turn it
off. >>

>>I've read this in two books, and heard it parotted by "educators,"
but I haven't seen it seem true with kids who weren't limited.<<

I wonder if this varies by how one's brain is wired or what one's
prefered learning style is.

I'm a very visual learner. Bedtime stories put me to sleep almost
immediately. My son is very auditory and has never fallen asleep while
I was still reading. My husband is very auditory and choses to nap in
front of the TV set. I can't fall asleep with the TV on unless I'm
especially sleepy. But when I feel ill, I like to curl up and sleep on
the couch listening to National Public Radio at barely audible level.
Clearly the people in my family respond differently to different media.

Betsy

Paula Sjogerman

on 10/18/03 2:21 PM, averyschmidt at patti.schmidt2@... wrote:

> You continue to watch tv/stay online past the point that you want to
> do so? If I have that right that's pretty interesting.
> What was your tv situation like when you were growing up?
> Did you have the freedom to watch as much as you wanted to?

Yup. No limits. Watched tons of tv.


>
>> This has never happened to me with a book. I will stay up way too
> late to
>> finish a great book, but have no problem putting down a book that
> is boring.
>
> But you will still watch a tv show you find boring?


Sometimes. And I don't tend to be an addictive personality, which is one of
the reasons I attribute this phenomenon to the medium and not me. But, as
Nanci said, there are people with more addictive personalities - and those
with super sensitivities - and so they might need even more help with these
issues. I have a son who is both addictive and sensitive and he needs more
guidance - that is, talking, questioning, processing, not "banning" - than
my daughter.

Paula

Kris

I would have the TV on 24/7, it's not the medium, it's my need for more than
one thing going on at the same time. When I was in college I had to be
doing something with my hands during a lecture, if I'm watching TV I'm
usually doing something else too, even reading. If I'm forced to do one
thing my mind tends to wander and I get antsy.

Both of my kids turn the TV off if given a chance, they both tend to need
one thing to focus on at a time. It's about who we are, not some magical
addictive allure of the television set.

Kris

<<> But you will still watch a tv show you find boring?


Sometimes. And I don't tend to be an addictive personality, which is one of
the reasons I attribute this phenomenon to the medium and not me. But, as
Nanci said, there are people with more addictive personalities - and those
with super sensitivities - and so they might need even more help with these
issues. I have a son who is both addictive and sensitive and he needs more
guidance - that is, talking, questioning, processing, not "banning" - than
my daughter.

Paula>>

Rebecca DeLong

Betsy <ecsamhill@...> wrote:
<<<I wonder if this varies by how one's brain is wired or what one's
preferred learning style is.

I'm a very visual learner. Bedtime stories put me to sleep almost
immediately. My son is very auditory and has never fallen asleep while
I was still reading. My husband is very auditory and chooses to nap in
front of the TV set. I can't fall asleep with the TV on unless I'm
especially sleepy. But when I feel ill, I like to curl up and sleep on
the couch listening to National Public Radio at barely audible level.
Clearly the people in my family respond differently to different media.>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've noticed that with Jaiden(5) he seems to be a kinesthetic(did I spell that right?) learner. He doesn't like to sit and be read to. He fig-its and bounces and just can't get into laying or sitting together and reading. He loves books on tape, tv, videos, sometimes he asks me to read to him while he plays, but not very often. That way he can play and incorporate what he's listening to in his games.

Avery(2) loves music. Any thing musical will capture his interest and hold it. He also will be intensely physical, running in circles, jumping off of everything he can climb on top of, singing...then suddenly stop and lay in front of the tv and watch something with total fascination, then get up run some more. It's very strange and at times a bit startling, but it's the way he seems to process information.

I do think that everyone learns and processes information differently. It's one of the many reasons I'm so glad that we discovered unschooling. My kids get the chance to discover themselves and the best way to learn and live for themselves, with out me or anyone else trying to force them to do things the "correct" (contrived schooly) way.

~Rebecca




*~*Leave the crowd, look within, and let your dreams soar*~*

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