TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games
[email protected]
Several years ago I watched a program on TV (!)---probably the History
Channel, but could have been A&E---about the world's greatest
inventions. One hundred of them. The countdown was pretty cool, and I
was glued to the TV. I mean---the top 100 of ALL the inventions *ever*?
The wheel was lower than you'd think---and I can't remember whether
sliced bread made the list at all! <G>
Anyway, the big winner was the press by Gutenberg. It brought books to
the masses. Pretty impressive.
And although I understand the importance of the printing press in
history, I was just thinking about the two biggest inventions in *OUR*
LIVES. The TV and computer have opened up our lives so much I can't
imagine life without them any more.
Books were really the only option even when *I* was a child (TV was
B&W and wowed me with I Love Lucy, Captain Kangaroo, and What's My
Line?)---and definitely the only option when my parents were kids
(well, I guess they did have radio). But TV was so limited that books
were how you found out about the world. Books and magazines (and there
weren't all *that* many magazines---not like now!). Books could take to
to another world--even if you had to make up the "view"---I mean the
author had to be damned descriptive to accurately "paint" the Serengeti
or the Alps or that silly and amazingly beautiful bird and his mating
dance on The Planet's Rainforest episode. ANd how many times have you
pictured someone or something so completely different than what the
author wrote? Only to find out later how wrong you were?
I can't imagine life without the incredible array of TV shows we have
now. People seem to bitch loudest about Ed, Edd, & Eddy and the latest
soon-to-be-nixed sit-com and the so-called "reality shows"---but
tossing out the TV also tosses out all the GOOD programming out there.
Why would you want to do THAT? Just turn the flippin' channel!
The computer has opened our worlds even further. The *instant* access
to everything printed (is anything not at our fingertips?) as well as
photos and film clips and interviews and....And then there's the
instant communication---I'm still amazed that I can just type someone's
name in...and THERE they are: really and truly in living color! <g> And
yet there are still folks who *choose* not to have a
computer---incredible!
The telephone would have to way up there too----and how many of us
from the 50s & 60s actually believed we'd have The Jetson's phone
(Skype) or Captain Kirk's communicator (cell)??? But as cool as the
phone is, I'm more likely to IM a friend than I am to pick up the
phone!
Back to the point. <g>
WHY would you want to deprive your child or yourself of something so
remarkably rich?
HOW can something so amazingly informative and beautiful and enriching
be bad for you?
HOW can a *box* be addictive or dangerous or powerful? Who has the
control here? Seriously?
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
Channel, but could have been A&E---about the world's greatest
inventions. One hundred of them. The countdown was pretty cool, and I
was glued to the TV. I mean---the top 100 of ALL the inventions *ever*?
The wheel was lower than you'd think---and I can't remember whether
sliced bread made the list at all! <G>
Anyway, the big winner was the press by Gutenberg. It brought books to
the masses. Pretty impressive.
And although I understand the importance of the printing press in
history, I was just thinking about the two biggest inventions in *OUR*
LIVES. The TV and computer have opened up our lives so much I can't
imagine life without them any more.
Books were really the only option even when *I* was a child (TV was
B&W and wowed me with I Love Lucy, Captain Kangaroo, and What's My
Line?)---and definitely the only option when my parents were kids
(well, I guess they did have radio). But TV was so limited that books
were how you found out about the world. Books and magazines (and there
weren't all *that* many magazines---not like now!). Books could take to
to another world--even if you had to make up the "view"---I mean the
author had to be damned descriptive to accurately "paint" the Serengeti
or the Alps or that silly and amazingly beautiful bird and his mating
dance on The Planet's Rainforest episode. ANd how many times have you
pictured someone or something so completely different than what the
author wrote? Only to find out later how wrong you were?
I can't imagine life without the incredible array of TV shows we have
now. People seem to bitch loudest about Ed, Edd, & Eddy and the latest
soon-to-be-nixed sit-com and the so-called "reality shows"---but
tossing out the TV also tosses out all the GOOD programming out there.
Why would you want to do THAT? Just turn the flippin' channel!
The computer has opened our worlds even further. The *instant* access
to everything printed (is anything not at our fingertips?) as well as
photos and film clips and interviews and....And then there's the
instant communication---I'm still amazed that I can just type someone's
name in...and THERE they are: really and truly in living color! <g> And
yet there are still folks who *choose* not to have a
computer---incredible!
The telephone would have to way up there too----and how many of us
from the 50s & 60s actually believed we'd have The Jetson's phone
(Skype) or Captain Kirk's communicator (cell)??? But as cool as the
phone is, I'm more likely to IM a friend than I am to pick up the
phone!
Back to the point. <g>
WHY would you want to deprive your child or yourself of something so
remarkably rich?
HOW can something so amazingly informative and beautiful and enriching
be bad for you?
HOW can a *box* be addictive or dangerous or powerful? Who has the
control here? Seriously?
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
Kathleen Gehrke
--- In [email protected], kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
information about more subjects that I can absorb. He is the guy in
every conversation that has something interesting and useful to say.
Something he gathered from History, Discovery or MTV.
I used to worry that he would never write or read well and then
walllaaa he discovered WOW. At first he was asking how to spell and
use each word. Now his fingers are going far faster than mine could.
That is real education.
It was self and interest led. NOT drug out by me or some random
stranger along with 30 other kids his age all learning the same
boring thing at the same time.
Kathleen
>History
> Several years ago I watched a program on TV (!)---probably the
> Channel, but could have been A&E---about the world's greatestand I
> inventions. One hundred of them. The countdown was pretty cool,
> was glued to the TV. I mean---the top 100 of ALL the inventions*ever*?
> The wheel was lower than you'd think---and I can't rememberwhether
> sliced bread made the list at all! <G>books to
>
> Anyway, the big winner was the press by Gutenberg. It brought
> the masses. Pretty impressive.in
>
> And although I understand the importance of the printing press
> history, I was just thinking about the two biggest inventions in*OUR*
> LIVES. The TV and computer have opened up our lives so much Ican't
> imagine life without them any more.My son Robby loves TV. He does not enjoy reading. He gathers
information about more subjects that I can absorb. He is the guy in
every conversation that has something interesting and useful to say.
Something he gathered from History, Discovery or MTV.
I used to worry that he would never write or read well and then
walllaaa he discovered WOW. At first he was asking how to spell and
use each word. Now his fingers are going far faster than mine could.
That is real education.
It was self and interest led. NOT drug out by me or some random
stranger along with 30 other kids his age all learning the same
boring thing at the same time.
Kathleen
Gold Standard
>>People seem to bitch loudest about Ed, Edd, & Eddy and the latestAnd just to give good balance here :o), some of us LOVE the reality
>>soon-to-be-nixed sit-com and the so-called "reality shows"---<<
shows...dd and I love shows about people and have had deep and insightful
discussions about people's actions and choices, why they do what they do,
etc. Much better fodder than probably would ever have come from seeing the
people that we do in our daily lives. After all, we don't live in the inner
city, aren't in position to date many people at once, and have never met
anyone like Flava Flav or New York! After seeing some different reality
shows, I think dd has already decided things she WON'T do without ever
having to have had the experience herself.
Discussions with my sons about these shows tend to be about the actual
production of the show...what was set up and what was real, what were the
intentions of the producers, camera angle choices, editing choices, etc.
They tend to be quite cynical about reality shows...they believe there is
major manipulation involved and don't usually go much further. They tend to
be drawn to documentaries (History Channel, Nature/Animal channels),
fiction/science fiction/fantasy, and comedy (Ed, Edd, and Eddy included :o).
6 people in this house, TV is unlimited, and it is on, on average, 1-2 hours
a day. Some days it isn't on at all. Sometimes it isn't on for many days.
Some days its on much of the day, like if there is a marathon of a favorite
show, or someone is sick, or there is a build-up of recorded favs.
>>tossing out the TV also tosses out all the GOOD programming out there....if it is you watching the TV. If your child is watching something you
>>Why would you want to do THAT? Just turn the flippin' channel!<<
don't like, go read a book :o) Or better, try to watch it with your
child...they are seeing something you aren't. Without being intrusive, ask
about what they like, who the characters are, etc. This has opened worlds
for us...deep conversations, insights that I wouldn't have had before.
>>HOW can a *box* be addictive or dangerous or powerful?<<By not letting one explore it, calling it dangerous and powerful, and by
holding it out like a carrot.
Jacki
Sandra Dodd
-=-walllaaa he discovered WOW. At first he was asking how to spell and
use each word. Now his fingers are going far faster than mine could.
That is real education.-=-
Voila, that's real *learning.*
Education is done to someone by someone else.
Learning happens inside the learner as brain connections are made and
things are accepted or rejected as better or worse, more useful or
less useful.
Voila means "look at that!"
It is like the lightbulb of a learning moment.
In French it has a backward accent on the "a" but it's used in
English without it.
There's a song Raffi sings that has, in every verse, "Well looky,
looky, looky! Y'know what fell out?..."
"Lookee" is used in English in an informal, little-kid way, but it's
left over from "look ye" (which means "look, you-to-whom-I'm-
speaking"). "Ye" is the informal, and the formal is "you." In
Shakespeare's Henry V, Fluellen says "look you" in several of his
speeches. Maybe it was regional at that time, but it's used as a
kind of "you know" amplifying statement, "you know"?
Everything's connected.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
use each word. Now his fingers are going far faster than mine could.
That is real education.-=-
Voila, that's real *learning.*
Education is done to someone by someone else.
Learning happens inside the learner as brain connections are made and
things are accepted or rejected as better or worse, more useful or
less useful.
Voila means "look at that!"
It is like the lightbulb of a learning moment.
In French it has a backward accent on the "a" but it's used in
English without it.
There's a song Raffi sings that has, in every verse, "Well looky,
looky, looky! Y'know what fell out?..."
"Lookee" is used in English in an informal, little-kid way, but it's
left over from "look ye" (which means "look, you-to-whom-I'm-
speaking"). "Ye" is the informal, and the formal is "you." In
Shakespeare's Henry V, Fluellen says "look you" in several of his
speeches. Maybe it was regional at that time, but it's used as a
kind of "you know" amplifying statement, "you know"?
Everything's connected.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joel Gwynn
I would answer that technology is not neutral, and every technology,
especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and computers
brings unforseen consequences. As Neil Postman mentions in "Informing
Ourselves to Death" (link below), when the printing press was invented, the
hope was that it would help to spread the Christian faith. In fact it took
power away from the church, as people could go right to the source, and led
to the Reformation.
When I think about the dangers of television, I think about the surveys
which showed that people who got most of their news from TV tended to be
less informed than people who got their news from other sources. Even
worse, those same people tended to be more supportive of the Iraq invasion
and more likely to believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein.
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html<http://www.mat.upm.es/%7Ejcm/postman-informing.html>
especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and computers
brings unforseen consequences. As Neil Postman mentions in "Informing
Ourselves to Death" (link below), when the printing press was invented, the
hope was that it would help to spread the Christian faith. In fact it took
power away from the church, as people could go right to the source, and led
to the Reformation.
When I think about the dangers of television, I think about the surveys
which showed that people who got most of their news from TV tended to be
less informed than people who got their news from other sources. Even
worse, those same people tended to be more supportive of the Iraq invasion
and more likely to believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein.
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html<http://www.mat.upm.es/%7Ejcm/postman-informing.html>
On 5/3/07, kbcdlovejo@... <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
>
> Several years ago I watched a program on TV (!)---probably the History
> Channel, but could have been A&E---about the world's greatest
> inventions. One hundred of them. The countdown was pretty cool, and I
> was glued to the TV. I mean---the top 100 of ALL the inventions *ever*?
> The wheel was lower than you'd think---and I can't remember whether
> sliced bread made the list at all! <G>
>
> Anyway, the big winner was the press by Gutenberg. It brought books to
> the masses. Pretty impressive.
>
> And although I understand the importance of the printing press in
> history, I was just thinking about the two biggest inventions in *OUR*
> LIVES. The TV and computer have opened up our lives so much I can't
> imagine life without them any more.
>
> Books were really the only option even when *I* was a child (TV was
> B&W and wowed me with I Love Lucy, Captain Kangaroo, and What's My
> Line?)---and definitely the only option when my parents were kids
> (well, I guess they did have radio). But TV was so limited that books
> were how you found out about the world. Books and magazines (and there
> weren't all *that* many magazines---not like now!). Books could take to
> to another world--even if you had to make up the "view"---I mean the
> author had to be damned descriptive to accurately "paint" the Serengeti
> or the Alps or that silly and amazingly beautiful bird and his mating
> dance on The Planet's Rainforest episode. ANd how many times have you
> pictured someone or something so completely different than what the
> author wrote? Only to find out later how wrong you were?
>
> I can't imagine life without the incredible array of TV shows we have
> now. People seem to bitch loudest about Ed, Edd, & Eddy and the latest
> soon-to-be-nixed sit-com and the so-called "reality shows"---but
> tossing out the TV also tosses out all the GOOD programming out there.
> Why would you want to do THAT? Just turn the flippin' channel!
>
> The computer has opened our worlds even further. The *instant* access
> to everything printed (is anything not at our fingertips?) as well as
> photos and film clips and interviews and....And then there's the
> instant communication---I'm still amazed that I can just type someone's
> name in...and THERE they are: really and truly in living color! <g> And
> yet there are still folks who *choose* not to have a
> computer---incredible!
>
> The telephone would have to way up there too----and how many of us
> from the 50s & 60s actually believed we'd have The Jetson's phone
> (Skype) or Captain Kirk's communicator (cell)??? But as cool as the
> phone is, I'm more likely to IM a friend than I am to pick up the
> phone!
>
> Back to the point. <g>
>
> WHY would you want to deprive your child or yourself of something so
> remarkably rich?
>
> HOW can something so amazingly informative and beautiful and enriching
> be bad for you?
>
> HOW can a *box* be addictive or dangerous or powerful? Who has the
> control here? Seriously?
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> Conference Coordinator
> Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
> http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
>
> __________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=I would answer that technology is not neutral, and every technology,
especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and
computers
brings unforseen consequences.-=-
"Disruptive" to what?
"Neutral" as opposed to what?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and
computers
brings unforseen consequences.-=-
"Disruptive" to what?
"Neutral" as opposed to what?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joelman2k
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
disruptive to the Medieval order and the Catholic Church, the dominant
institution of the time.
technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore at our peril.
>Disruptive to the status quo. The printing press was hugely
> -=I would answer that technology is not neutral, and every technology,
> especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and
> computers
> brings unforseen consequences.-=-
>
> "Disruptive" to what?
>
disruptive to the Medieval order and the Catholic Church, the dominant
institution of the time.
> "Neutral" as opposed to what?As opposed to something that has positive and negative effects. Major
>
technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore at our peril.
Sandra Dodd
-=-Disruptive to the status quo. The printing press was hugely
disruptive to the Medieval order and the Catholic Church, the dominant
institution of the time.-=-
"The Medieval order" would mean what, then? There were many
cultures in many states of rest and unrest. Do you mean it gave a
means of advancement to people who should've stayed lower class?
As to the church, there were things printed by and for the Catholic
Church that they appreciated having available. They were having a
hard time with unity within "the church" -- it looked very different
in Iceland than it did in Spain or Germany already. Our
idealization of the past doesn't create truth.
-=-> "Neutral" as opposed to what?
-=-As opposed to something that has positive and negative effects. Major
technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore at our peril.
-=-
"Peril" is just too dramatic a concept for me.
By "ignore" do you mean it's better to ignore TV? That prevents peril?
Or to pay close attention to the perilous potential of TV? That
would be a waste of a life.
I owned and gave away a book that analyzed rock lyrics in gory detail
to prove they were anti-Christian, satanic, evil. MUCH detail. The
guy who wrote that was sure he was being Godly, but what he did was
to dedicate his life to wallowing in the worst of rock lyrics. There
went his 60-however-many-years on earth, stuck in heavy metal lyrics.
Everything has a positive or negative effect on someone, and nothing
has a positive or negative effect on EVERYone, so do you have an
example of something that IS neutral?
Do you have an example of something that's not perilous?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
disruptive to the Medieval order and the Catholic Church, the dominant
institution of the time.-=-
"The Medieval order" would mean what, then? There were many
cultures in many states of rest and unrest. Do you mean it gave a
means of advancement to people who should've stayed lower class?
As to the church, there were things printed by and for the Catholic
Church that they appreciated having available. They were having a
hard time with unity within "the church" -- it looked very different
in Iceland than it did in Spain or Germany already. Our
idealization of the past doesn't create truth.
-=-> "Neutral" as opposed to what?
-=-As opposed to something that has positive and negative effects. Major
technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore at our peril.
-=-
"Peril" is just too dramatic a concept for me.
By "ignore" do you mean it's better to ignore TV? That prevents peril?
Or to pay close attention to the perilous potential of TV? That
would be a waste of a life.
I owned and gave away a book that analyzed rock lyrics in gory detail
to prove they were anti-Christian, satanic, evil. MUCH detail. The
guy who wrote that was sure he was being Godly, but what he did was
to dedicate his life to wallowing in the worst of rock lyrics. There
went his 60-however-many-years on earth, stuck in heavy metal lyrics.
Everything has a positive or negative effect on someone, and nothing
has a positive or negative effect on EVERYone, so do you have an
example of something that IS neutral?
Do you have an example of something that's not perilous?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
--- In [email protected], "Joel Gwynn" <joelman@...>
wrote:
watching tv and playing computer games *with* them. Many many
unschoolers can attest to having thoughtful, critical conversations
about the content of various tv shows and <gasp> advertisements with
their kids. My partner and 13yo stepson regularly talk about the
inherent biases of comedy shows, for example, while I tend to have
conversations with him about computer games.
home, since we got a satellite dish almost six months ago. My 5yo
went from a kid who liked to draw to someone passionate about
cartoons - as in drawing them. She has studied cartoon after cartoon
for details of how to draw forms, action, and emotion in different
ways, different styles. Its been pretty spectacular.
My stepson, who's been here about the same amount of time as the
dish, is more interested in computer games, for the most part. He
left school saying he never wanted to read again, but as
an "unforseen consequence" of his online gaming, has started
exploring different languages and doing some private research about
Ireland. Amazing.
spend time gathering information from a variety of sources, rather
than relying on a single source - did the surveys in question
control for that? Its hardly surprising that people who aren't very
interested in a subject don't know a whole lot about that subject.
That doesn't say anything at all about tv, but it may say something
about the less-than-neutral nature of surveys.
---Meredith (Mo 5.5, Ray 13)
wrote:
>computers
> technology is not neutral, and every technology,
> especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television and
> brings unforseen consequences.All the more reason to be involved in our kids lives - including
watching tv and playing computer games *with* them. Many many
unschoolers can attest to having thoughtful, critical conversations
about the content of various tv shows and <gasp> advertisements with
their kids. My partner and 13yo stepson regularly talk about the
inherent biases of comedy shows, for example, while I tend to have
conversations with him about computer games.
>unforseen consequences.We've had some really interesting "unforseen consequences" in our
home, since we got a satellite dish almost six months ago. My 5yo
went from a kid who liked to draw to someone passionate about
cartoons - as in drawing them. She has studied cartoon after cartoon
for details of how to draw forms, action, and emotion in different
ways, different styles. Its been pretty spectacular.
My stepson, who's been here about the same amount of time as the
dish, is more interested in computer games, for the most part. He
left school saying he never wanted to read again, but as
an "unforseen consequence" of his online gaming, has started
exploring different languages and doing some private research about
Ireland. Amazing.
> When I think about the dangers of television, I think about thesurveys
> which showed that people who got most of their news from TV tendedto be
> less informed than people who got their news from other sources.My experience is that people who are interested in current events
spend time gathering information from a variety of sources, rather
than relying on a single source - did the surveys in question
control for that? Its hardly surprising that people who aren't very
interested in a subject don't know a whole lot about that subject.
That doesn't say anything at all about tv, but it may say something
about the less-than-neutral nature of surveys.
---Meredith (Mo 5.5, Ray 13)
Sandra Dodd
-=-Its hardly surprising that people who aren't very
interested in a subject don't know a whole lot about that subject. -=-
Like someone who isn't intersted in TV except to villify it might use
a single source report to say it's evil. <g>
-=-That doesn't say anything at all about tv, but it may say something
about the less-than-neutral nature of surveys.-=-
And about critical thinking and prejudice and superstition and control.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
interested in a subject don't know a whole lot about that subject. -=-
Like someone who isn't intersted in TV except to villify it might use
a single source report to say it's evil. <g>
-=-That doesn't say anything at all about tv, but it may say something
about the less-than-neutral nature of surveys.-=-
And about critical thinking and prejudice and superstition and control.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kathleen Gehrke
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
When I was little my grandpa corrected my use of a word. I was four. I
sweetly went over hugged him and told him,"you say it your way, I'll
say it mine."
Kathleen
>YES Real learning.
>
>
> Voila, that's real *learning.*
> In French it has a backward accent on the "a" but it's used inand voila I just keep getting more information. Thanks.
> English without it.
When I was little my grandpa corrected my use of a word. I was four. I
sweetly went over hugged him and told him,"you say it your way, I'll
say it mine."
Kathleen
Pamela Sorooshian
On May 3, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Joel Gwynn wrote:
them into adults who make better choices about tv viewing, I guess.
It doesn't make sense to me - seems like supporting kids in watching
what they want to watch, watching with them, having lots of
conversations about tv programming -- THAT is what is more likely to
result in adults who think clearly about things like what tv news is
really all about.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When I think about the dangers of television, I think about thePeople think that imposing limits on tv-viewing of kids will turn
> surveys
> which showed that people who got most of their news from TV tended
> to be
> less informed than people who got their news from other sources.
them into adults who make better choices about tv viewing, I guess.
It doesn't make sense to me - seems like supporting kids in watching
what they want to watch, watching with them, having lots of
conversations about tv programming -- THAT is what is more likely to
result in adults who think clearly about things like what tv news is
really all about.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On May 3, 2007, at 8:53 AM, joelman2k wrote:
something about them - you don't know they are going to happen.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Major technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore atIf they are truly unforeseen, then you don't have a choice of doing
> our peril.
something about them - you don't know they are going to happen.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joelman2k
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute.
I've read it in the Neil Postman article that I cited previously, as
well as in Marshall McLuhan's _Understanding Media_. Here's a quote
from the article I linked to earlier:
<snip>
Gutenberg thought his invention would
advance the cause of the Holy Roman See, whereas in fact, it turned
out to bring a revolution which destroyed the monopoly of the Church.
</snip>
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html
What do you think of Postman's discussion of the unintended effects of
new technologies on society?
against the damaging potential of any technology. In response to
Kelly's statement about TV:
<snip>
HOW can something so amazingly informative and beautiful and enriching
be bad for you?
</snip>
I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. Everybody's vulnerable,
not just kids. That's why so much money is spent on advertising and
creating the images that we see.
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture. Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.
That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you think?
>I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
> -=-Disruptive to the status quo. The printing press was hugely
> disruptive to the Medieval order and the Catholic Church, the dominant
> institution of the time.-=-
>
> "The Medieval order" would mean what, then? There were many
> cultures in many states of rest and unrest. Do you mean it gave a
> means of advancement to people who should've stayed lower class?
>
> As to the church, there were things printed by and for the Catholic
> Church that they appreciated having available. They were having a
> hard time with unity within "the church" -- it looked very different
> in Iceland than it did in Spain or Germany already. Our
> idealization of the past doesn't create truth.
>
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute.
I've read it in the Neil Postman article that I cited previously, as
well as in Marshall McLuhan's _Understanding Media_. Here's a quote
from the article I linked to earlier:
<snip>
Gutenberg thought his invention would
advance the cause of the Holy Roman See, whereas in fact, it turned
out to bring a revolution which destroyed the monopoly of the Church.
</snip>
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html
What do you think of Postman's discussion of the unintended effects of
new technologies on society?
> -=-> "Neutral" as opposed to what?I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
>
> -=-As opposed to something that has positive and negative effects. Major
> technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore at our peril.
> -=-
>
> "Peril" is just too dramatic a concept for me.
>
> By "ignore" do you mean it's better to ignore TV? That prevents peril?
> Or to pay close attention to the perilous potential of TV? That
> would be a waste of a life.
>
against the damaging potential of any technology. In response to
Kelly's statement about TV:
<snip>
HOW can something so amazingly informative and beautiful and enriching
be bad for you?
</snip>
I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. Everybody's vulnerable,
not just kids. That's why so much money is spent on advertising and
creating the images that we see.
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture. Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.
That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you think?
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], "Gold Standard" <jacki@...>
wrote:
say about it?
Bob
wrote:
>Ed, Edd & Eddy? Really? I'm intrigued. What kind of things do people
> >>People seem to bitch loudest about Ed, Edd, & Eddy and the latest
> >>soon-to-be-nixed sit-com and the so-called "reality shows"---<<
>
>
say about it?
Bob
Bob Collier
Hey, Meredith
If you put your ear to your computer screen, you might be able to
hear my applause coming to you all the way from sunny Canberra.
Although, I used to be a Luddite and now I'm not, and you know what
they say about reformed whatevers turning into zealots. :)
In any event, last time I looked, all TVs come with both a means of
changing from a programme you don't like to one you do and - if you
can't find something you like - a button you can press to switch it
off. If those things were absent, I might be more receptive to the
idea that this is technology that isn't neutral, but it seems to me
they're standard components.
Bob
--- In [email protected], "Meredith" <meredith@...>
wrote:
If you put your ear to your computer screen, you might be able to
hear my applause coming to you all the way from sunny Canberra.
Although, I used to be a Luddite and now I'm not, and you know what
they say about reformed whatevers turning into zealots. :)
In any event, last time I looked, all TVs come with both a means of
changing from a programme you don't like to one you do and - if you
can't find something you like - a button you can press to switch it
off. If those things were absent, I might be more receptive to the
idea that this is technology that isn't neutral, but it seems to me
they're standard components.
Bob
--- In [email protected], "Meredith" <meredith@...>
wrote:
>and
> --- In [email protected], "Joel Gwynn" <joelman@>
> wrote:
> >
> > technology is not neutral, and every technology,
> > especially disruptive ones like the printing press, television
> computerswith
> > brings unforseen consequences.
>
> All the more reason to be involved in our kids lives - including
> watching tv and playing computer games *with* them. Many many
> unschoolers can attest to having thoughtful, critical conversations
> about the content of various tv shows and <gasp> advertisements
> their kids. My partner and 13yo stepson regularly talk about thecartoon
> inherent biases of comedy shows, for example, while I tend to have
> conversations with him about computer games.
>
> >unforseen consequences.
>
> We've had some really interesting "unforseen consequences" in our
> home, since we got a satellite dish almost six months ago. My 5yo
> went from a kid who liked to draw to someone passionate about
> cartoons - as in drawing them. She has studied cartoon after
> for details of how to draw forms, action, and emotion in differenttended
> ways, different styles. Its been pretty spectacular.
>
> My stepson, who's been here about the same amount of time as the
> dish, is more interested in computer games, for the most part. He
> left school saying he never wanted to read again, but as
> an "unforseen consequence" of his online gaming, has started
> exploring different languages and doing some private research about
> Ireland. Amazing.
>
> > When I think about the dangers of television, I think about the
> surveys
> > which showed that people who got most of their news from TV
> to be
> > less informed than people who got their news from other sources.
>
> My experience is that people who are interested in current events
> spend time gathering information from a variety of sources, rather
> than relying on a single source - did the surveys in question
> control for that? Its hardly surprising that people who aren't very
> interested in a subject don't know a whole lot about that subject.
> That doesn't say anything at all about tv, but it may say something
> about the less-than-neutral nature of surveys.
>
> ---Meredith (Mo 5.5, Ray 13)
>
Bob Collier
The piano was major technology, by the way. Just a thought.
--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>at
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 8:53 AM, joelman2k wrote:
>
> > Major technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore
> > our peril.doing
>
> If they are truly unforeseen, then you don't have a choice of
> something about them - you don't know they are going to happen.
>
> -pam
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sandra Dodd
A cynical alarmist wrote:
-=-> > Major technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore
our peril.-=-
A positive-thinking former/reformed Luddite wrote:
-=-The piano was major technology, by the way. Just a thought.-=-
AH! Pianos.
The plow.
Antibiotics.
Toilet paper.
Yes, bad things can be said about all of them. Are they neutral?
Well, they're not acidic, and they're not base. [Oh wait... toilet
paper, kinda... and pianos have bass... (long "a"; not the fish)]
Anyone want to recommend other major technology with unforseen
consequences we ignore at our peril? Boats. Coal mining. Rail
travel. Cameras. Taking stuff out of trees: rubber, cork, maple
syrup, retsina...
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-> > Major technologies have unforseen consequences that we ignore
our peril.-=-
A positive-thinking former/reformed Luddite wrote:
-=-The piano was major technology, by the way. Just a thought.-=-
AH! Pianos.
The plow.
Antibiotics.
Toilet paper.
Yes, bad things can be said about all of them. Are they neutral?
Well, they're not acidic, and they're not base. [Oh wait... toilet
paper, kinda... and pianos have bass... (long "a"; not the fish)]
Anyone want to recommend other major technology with unforseen
consequences we ignore at our peril? Boats. Coal mining. Rail
travel. Cameras. Taking stuff out of trees: rubber, cork, maple
syrup, retsina...
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
> I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,My kids aren't that vulnerable to television. There are occasionally things
> but there's also lots manipulative crap too. Everybody's vulnerable,
> not just kids. That's why so much money is spent on advertising and
> creating the images that we see.
that they see advertised that appeal to them, and last night, watching
Lizzie McGuire, Linnaea wanted me to brush her hair. But, on the whole they
aren't that vulnerable. Probably much less to do with television and much
more to do with themselves. If I view the television and its advertising as
predatory, surely it is much better if I help my children, the prey items,
to be stronger in themselves and less likely to be easy prey then if I only
delay their association with television until they are no longer under my
"watchful eye".
I think that there are ways that people can be vulnerable to the influences
of others. But I don't believe that by opening the world up and exploring
its rich wonderfulness and supporting your children in experiencing the joys
that are possible will you be likely to increase their vulnerability. I
don't believe that by saying yes to your children's dreams and desires you
will produce children who are needy enough to believe that whatever
advertised product will make them more complete or a better person. I do
believe that you can imbue objects with greater power by demonizing them, by
separating them, by saying to others that they aren't powerful enough to
withstand whatever that object contains. I do believe that anything can go
from the mundane to the sacred simply by limiting or denying access to that
thing from pomegranate seeds or apples to television to a candy bar to a
packet of chips. I know a boy who can't wait until he is grown so that he
can eat meat and stay up late. Meat and late nights are his coming of age
rights. And so the morality based vegetarianism may be lost on him, because
meat is not murder, it is an adult privilege. It isn't his morality, it is
his mother's. Just as shopping at Walmart or eating at McDonalds or watching
Ed, Edd and Eddy might be for the children of somebody who is boycotting any
of those things and making their children boycott them as well. Whether or
not boycotting those things is an ethical thing, if the boycott isn't your
choice...
The television has been on for much of the morning. It often is on for most
of the day. Simon and Linnaea seem to enjoy the noise. They aren't watching
it. They are finding magical rings that give them certain powers over the
universe and Simon is hunting deer and wolves for him to eat or salt or
smoke after Linnaea skins them. Linnaea is gathering plants and nuts and
berries, she's a vegetarian, so won't eat the meat, but she is alright with
using the skins to make clothes. Sometimes, in a lull of the movement and
the storytelling, they will stop and watch something. Just now it sparked a
conversation about being "book smart" versus other kinds of smart, a
carryover of a conversation from last night. And, since this e-mail has
taken me much of 4 hours to write, Simon has been practicing juggling and
exploring some of a fingerprinting kit and Linnaea has made a few potions
while sitting in the same room as the television. An active life is occuring
with the television on, whatever "peril" that may be lurking, it isn't
darkening our day.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
Sandra Dodd
-=-
I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-
You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?
Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.
-=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-
If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.
-=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-
What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
"manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.
-=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-
Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.
-=-
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture.-=-
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
information in in different ways. Most people take information in
several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.
-=-Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-
If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.
-=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
think?-=-
I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
have learned from your own observations of life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-
You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?
Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.
-=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-
If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.
-=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-
What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
"manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.
-=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-
Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.
-=-
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture.-=-
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
information in in different ways. Most people take information in
several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.
-=-Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-
If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.
-=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
think?-=-
I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
have learned from your own observations of life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joelman2k
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
just that it was disruptive; that in addition to all the obvious
benefits you mention, the ability rapidly disseminate ideas brought
about a major shift in consciousness. To discuss the unanticipated
consequences of the printing press is not to dismiss the obvious
benefits. Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.
technology. I've provided some references and citations to give some
context for them. I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
or discussing.
My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.
This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.
>I didn't say that the printing press destroyed the Catholic church,
> -=-
> I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
> the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-
>
> You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
> you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
> printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?
>
> Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
> Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.
>
just that it was disruptive; that in addition to all the obvious
benefits you mention, the ability rapidly disseminate ideas brought
about a major shift in consciousness. To discuss the unanticipated
consequences of the printing press is not to dismiss the obvious
benefits. Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.
> -=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilantWhat have I said that was insulting?
> against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-
>
> If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
> drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
> feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.
>
> -=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
> but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-
>
> What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
> "manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
> something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
> to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.
>
> -=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-I'm trying to discuss some ideas about how we interact with
>
> Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
> Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
> People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.
>
> -=-
> Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
> kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
> kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
> we have with the moving picture.-=-
>
> You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
> information in in different ways. Most people take information in
> several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
> in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.
>
> -=-Even the way we engage with TV
> is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
> process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
> whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-
>
> If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
> is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
> and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
> or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
> jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
> effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
> as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.
>
> -=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
> think?-=-
>
> I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
> have learned from your own observations of life.
>
technology. I've provided some references and citations to give some
context for them. I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
or discussing.
My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.
This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.
Sandra Dodd
-=-I didn't say that the printing press destroyed the Catholic
church,-=-
You said it destroyed their monopoly.
I was saying they had fractionalization and localization before
printing that was somewhat amended by being able to publish and
disseminate information.
But what you were really saying was that technology is dangerous and
we can't ignore it.
Neither of those statements is about children and learning and
unschooling.
-=-Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.-=-
It's not worth discussing, as it's not unschooling and it wasn't
something you yourself experienced. If you want to debate history,
go to a history forum, or an anti-technology list. If you want to
participate on this list, write about unschooling at your house, and
how your kids are learning, and how your life is.
-=-My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.-=-
If they're not about unschooling, they're inappropriate for this
list. If they ARE about unschooling, then it helps others have more
data about unschooling. The observations of others about your
experiences, and the observation BY others of your experience is
informative, and it's a kind of research, too. It's a learning
opportunity for all concerned when unschoolers share their
experiences with other unschoolers, just the same as when those who
restore 50's Chevy trucks share their experiences with others who
have and work on the same kinds of trucks.
-=-This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.-=-
Ah.
There's an example of you being insulting.
This discussion might be going nowhere in your mind, but on the
AlwaysLearning list, where hundreds of people are reading what you
choose to write and post, there is a lot of learning happening.
If it's "clear" to you that that's nothing, your view could use
expansion.
Sandra
listowner
unschooling mom for 17 years, with a few more ahead
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
church,-=-
You said it destroyed their monopoly.
I was saying they had fractionalization and localization before
printing that was somewhat amended by being able to publish and
disseminate information.
But what you were really saying was that technology is dangerous and
we can't ignore it.
Neither of those statements is about children and learning and
unschooling.
-=-Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.-=-
It's not worth discussing, as it's not unschooling and it wasn't
something you yourself experienced. If you want to debate history,
go to a history forum, or an anti-technology list. If you want to
participate on this list, write about unschooling at your house, and
how your kids are learning, and how your life is.
-=-My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.-=-
If they're not about unschooling, they're inappropriate for this
list. If they ARE about unschooling, then it helps others have more
data about unschooling. The observations of others about your
experiences, and the observation BY others of your experience is
informative, and it's a kind of research, too. It's a learning
opportunity for all concerned when unschoolers share their
experiences with other unschoolers, just the same as when those who
restore 50's Chevy trucks share their experiences with others who
have and work on the same kinds of trucks.
-=-This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.-=-
Ah.
There's an example of you being insulting.
This discussion might be going nowhere in your mind, but on the
AlwaysLearning list, where hundreds of people are reading what you
choose to write and post, there is a lot of learning happening.
If it's "clear" to you that that's nothing, your view could use
expansion.
Sandra
listowner
unschooling mom for 17 years, with a few more ahead
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
I used to be a Marshall McLuhan fan - many years ago. But I now think
that he pulled much of his philosophy out of thin air - and it just
isn't the same air that I'm breathing these days. Neil Postman is a
great read, but he really is not talking about unschoolers - he is
absolutely focused on the lives of schooled kids.
Our ideas are truly just as valid, more so if we're talking about
unschooling families, because McLuhan absolutely never met a single
unschooling family, I'm sure. He never knew kids who grew up with all
the technology and without parental fear of the technology.
When someone goes on a scared rant about the evils of tv and video
games and the internet, etc., "we" know for sure that they aren't
truly aware of the possibilities inherent in an unschooling lifestyle
- we know for sure that they don't understand what a difference in
parent/child relationships there is between even the nicest
conventional parents and radical unschoolers. We know that tv-
watching and viddeo game playing are not hurting our children - we
know these as facts in the same way we know water is wet and sunshine
is warm - we know it with an absolute certainty because we are living
it, it is our own experience and the real life experience of hundreds
of other families we know.
-pam
that he pulled much of his philosophy out of thin air - and it just
isn't the same air that I'm breathing these days. Neil Postman is a
great read, but he really is not talking about unschoolers - he is
absolutely focused on the lives of schooled kids.
Our ideas are truly just as valid, more so if we're talking about
unschooling families, because McLuhan absolutely never met a single
unschooling family, I'm sure. He never knew kids who grew up with all
the technology and without parental fear of the technology.
When someone goes on a scared rant about the evils of tv and video
games and the internet, etc., "we" know for sure that they aren't
truly aware of the possibilities inherent in an unschooling lifestyle
- we know for sure that they don't understand what a difference in
parent/child relationships there is between even the nicest
conventional parents and radical unschoolers. We know that tv-
watching and viddeo game playing are not hurting our children - we
know these as facts in the same way we know water is wet and sunshine
is warm - we know it with an absolute certainty because we are living
it, it is our own experience and the real life experience of hundreds
of other families we know.
-pam
On May 4, 2007, at 7:37 AM, joelman2k wrote:
> I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
> some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
> Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
> or discussing.
>
> My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
> informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
> just navel-gazing.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
On May 4, 2007, at 10:37 AM, joelman2k wrote:
I think we *should* trust our own observations. But we shouldn't stop
there. We *should* think clearly and objectively about what we
observe. Turn it around and upside down and look at it from all angles.
Is it some rare gift to be able to try to objectively assess the
cause and effect of what we see, to test out theories we come to
against a larger pool of data? To think critically?
I don't think so. I think schools do a good job of discouraging
people from exercising those muscles. They train people to look at
what experts see first and fit their interpretation of their own
observations to the experts. (How many people judged the validity of
a science experiment in school based on the result they *should* get?
Well, yeah, the experiments were set up that way: to lead us to the
right answer. So were math problems. So were the conclusions we were
supposed to draw from Silas Marner.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're notI find that idea disturbing and not helpful for unschooling.
> informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
> just navel-gazing.
I think we *should* trust our own observations. But we shouldn't stop
there. We *should* think clearly and objectively about what we
observe. Turn it around and upside down and look at it from all angles.
Is it some rare gift to be able to try to objectively assess the
cause and effect of what we see, to test out theories we come to
against a larger pool of data? To think critically?
I don't think so. I think schools do a good job of discouraging
people from exercising those muscles. They train people to look at
what experts see first and fit their interpretation of their own
observations to the experts. (How many people judged the validity of
a science experiment in school based on the result they *should* get?
Well, yeah, the experiments were set up that way: to lead us to the
right answer. So were math problems. So were the conclusions we were
supposed to draw from Silas Marner.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kim H
<<Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
I know some people who are so fearful of this stuff.Their lives are really, really stressed out by it as they struggle to work out how to unschool around these fears. To me, fear and unschooling simply don't mesh. Where there's fear there's control. Where there's control there's children without freedom.
Water, sun (as Sandra mentioned)...air, rain, wind, fire all natural occuring things....all have killing/damaging capacity. Having information about how to live with these things and enjoy them has got to be the thing our children need. Enjoying water and sun and computers and TV and books and paint and sleep and food and.....life with our children has got to be a joyful existance.
It's certainly one we are enjoying (mostly now free from techno fear)
Kim
> Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.This really resonated with me and has helped me deal with the little fears that sneak up on me from time to time regarding the fear-based stuff out there on the evils of TV to the soul and the electro magnetic radiation that oozes out of the screens etc (two things that don't seem to come up much here from new members).
> People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid>>
I know some people who are so fearful of this stuff.Their lives are really, really stressed out by it as they struggle to work out how to unschool around these fears. To me, fear and unschooling simply don't mesh. Where there's fear there's control. Where there's control there's children without freedom.
Water, sun (as Sandra mentioned)...air, rain, wind, fire all natural occuring things....all have killing/damaging capacity. Having information about how to live with these things and enjoy them has got to be the thing our children need. Enjoying water and sun and computers and TV and books and paint and sleep and food and.....life with our children has got to be a joyful existance.
It's certainly one we are enjoying (mostly now free from techno fear)
Kim
----- Original Message -----
From: joelman2k
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:37 AM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-
> I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
> the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-
>
> You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
> you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
> printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?
>
> Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
> Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.
>
I didn't say that the printing press destroyed the Catholic church,
just that it was disruptive; that in addition to all the obvious
benefits you mention, the ability rapidly disseminate ideas brought
about a major shift in consciousness. To discuss the unanticipated
consequences of the printing press is not to dismiss the obvious
benefits. Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.
> -=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
> against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-
>
> If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
> drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
> feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.
>
> -=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
> but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-
>
> What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
> "manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
> something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
> to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.
>
What have I said that was insulting?
> -=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-
>
> Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
> Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
> People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.
>
> -=-
> Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
> kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
> kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
> we have with the moving picture.-=-
>
> You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
> information in in different ways. Most people take information in
> several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
> in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.
>
> -=-Even the way we engage with TV
> is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
> process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
> whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-
>
> If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
> is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
> and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
> or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
> jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
> effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
> as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.
>
> -=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
> think?-=-
>
> I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
> have learned from your own observations of life.
>
I'm trying to discuss some ideas about how we interact with
technology. I've provided some references and citations to give some
context for them. I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
or discussing.
My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.
This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
On May 9, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Kim H wrote:
beginning of the thread I believe -- though perhaps more so on the
UnschoolingDiscussion and unschoolingbasics lists.
The second one hasn't been true since 1968. (I was going to say
"Funny how no one says TV *and* computer screens" (since people sit
much closer to them and for longer periods of time) but I guess those
people aren't on the internet compaining about it.)
This is from the FDA:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> evils of TV to the soul and the electro magnetic radiation thatThe first one does come up frequently -- that idea was implied in the
> oozes out of the screens etc (two things that don't seem to come up
> much here from new members).
beginning of the thread I believe -- though perhaps more so on the
UnschoolingDiscussion and unschoolingbasics lists.
The second one hasn't been true since 1968. (I was going to say
"Funny how no one says TV *and* computer screens" (since people sit
much closer to them and for longer periods of time) but I guess those
people aren't on the internet compaining about it.)
This is from the FDA:
> Is the TV Radiation a Hazard?Joyce
>
> Scientists have not identified specific health effects resulting
> from exposure to extremely low doses of low-level radiation over
> prolonged periods of time. However, the current assumption is that
> there is no threshold of exposure below which x-radiation may not
> adversely effect human health. It is advisable, therefore, that x-
> radiation from TV sets, as well as other commonly used electronic
> products, be kept as low as reasonably achievable. It was for this
> purpose that Congress enacted the Radiation Control for Health and
> Safety Act of 1968 (currently called Federal Food, Drug, and
> Cosmetic Act � Subchapter C � Electronic Product Radiation Control).
>
> It should be emphasized that most TV sets have not been found to
> give off any measurable level of radiation, and there is no
> evidence that radiation from TV sets has resulted in human injury.
>
> Setting a Radiation Safety Standard
>
> The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility for
> carrying out an electronic product radiation control program
> mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of
> the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Through it's Center for Devices and
> Radiological Health, FDA sets and enforces standards of performance
> for electronic products to assure that radiation emissions do not
> pose a hazard to public health.
>
> A Federal standard limiting x-ray emissions from TV receivers to
> 0.5 milliroentgen per hour (mR/hr) was issued on December 25, 1969.
> The standard is applicable to all TV sets manufactured after
> January 15, 1970. The overall effect of the standard is to require
> that TV receivers must not emit x-radiation above the 0.5 mR/hr
> level when tested under adverse operating conditions. Test
> conditions do not represent normal use and ensure that when used
> under normal conditions, TV sets do not pose a radiation hazard.
>
> Assuring That TV Sets Meet the Radiation Standard
>
> Manufacturers of television receivers and computer monitors contain
> CRTs must certify that their products meets performance standard
> under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
> 1020.10. All TV manufacturers must submit written radiation safety
> reports to FDA outlining how they assure that each set coming off
> the assembly line complies with the Federal x-ray radiation limit.
> These reports contain a description of the manufacturer�s quality
> control and testing program and the television radiation safety
> design. Manufacturers also must maintain records of test data and
> prepare an annual report to FDA summarizing these records. The FDA
> has the authority to ask for radiation safety data including
> results of x-ray leakage from selected sets to determine compliance
> with the standard.
>
> Television receivers imported into the United States, which do not
> meet the standard are not allowed into the country and are
> destroyed if not exported in 90 days. Importers, however, may
> petition FDA for permission to correct the violations.
>
> How Safe Are TV Sets Today?
>
> X-radiation emissions from properly operated TV sets and computer
> monitors containing CRTs are well controlled and do not present a
> public health hazard. The FDA standard, and today�s technology,
> such as electronic hold-down safety circuits and regulated power
> supplies, have effectively eliminated the risk of x-radiation from
> these products. FDA has not found TVs that violate the standard
> under normal (home) use conditions.
>
> It is important to note also that flat panel TVs incorporating
> Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) or Plasma displays are not capable of
> emitting x-radiation. As such these products and are not subject to
> the FDA standard and do not pose a public health hazard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kim H
Thankyou, Joyce for taking the time to address that particular comment I
made about TV and the electro -magnetic worries.
This list is such a comfortable, homey, safe place. The people here care so
much about children that they take the time to go and get info and place it
here in the hope that it will help others. With everyone having such busy
lives I just so appreciate that effort that many of you put in to help us
all connect and enjoy our children all the more.
Thank you, thankyou!
Kim
made about TV and the electro -magnetic worries.
This list is such a comfortable, homey, safe place. The people here care so
much about children that they take the time to go and get info and place it
here in the hope that it will help others. With everyone having such busy
lives I just so appreciate that effort that many of you put in to help us
all connect and enjoy our children all the more.
Thank you, thankyou!
Kim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games
>
> On May 9, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Kim H wrote:
>
>> evils of TV to the soul and the electro magnetic radiation that
>> oozes out of the screens etc (two things that don't seem to come up
>> much here from new members).
>
> The first one does come up frequently -- that idea was implied in the
> beginning of the thread I believe -- though perhaps more so on the
> UnschoolingDiscussion and unschoolingbasics lists.
>
> The second one hasn't been true since 1968. (I was going to say
> "Funny how no one says TV *and* computer screens" (since people sit
> much closer to them and for longer periods of time) but I guess those
> people aren't on the internet compaining about it.)
>
> This is from the FDA:
>
>> Is the TV Radiation a Hazard?
>>
>> Scientists have not identified specific health effects resulting
>> from exposure to extremely low doses of low-level radiation over
>> prolonged periods of time. However, the current assumption is that
>> there is no threshold of exposure below which x-radiation may not
>> adversely effect human health. It is advisable, therefore, that x-
>> radiation from TV sets, as well as other commonly used electronic
>> products, be kept as low as reasonably achievable. It was for this
>> purpose that Congress enacted the Radiation Control for Health and
>> Safety Act of 1968 (currently called Federal Food, Drug, and
>> Cosmetic Act - Subchapter C - Electronic Product Radiation Control).
>>
>> It should be emphasized that most TV sets have not been found to
>> give off any measurable level of radiation, and there is no
>> evidence that radiation from TV sets has resulted in human injury.
>>
>> Setting a Radiation Safety Standard
>>
>> The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility for
>> carrying out an electronic product radiation control program
>> mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of
>> the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Through it's Center for Devices and
>> Radiological Health, FDA sets and enforces standards of performance
>> for electronic products to assure that radiation emissions do not
>> pose a hazard to public health.
>>
>> A Federal standard limiting x-ray emissions from TV receivers to
>> 0.5 milliroentgen per hour (mR/hr) was issued on December 25, 1969.
>> The standard is applicable to all TV sets manufactured after
>> January 15, 1970. The overall effect of the standard is to require
>> that TV receivers must not emit x-radiation above the 0.5 mR/hr
>> level when tested under adverse operating conditions. Test
>> conditions do not represent normal use and ensure that when used
>> under normal conditions, TV sets do not pose a radiation hazard.
>>
>> Assuring That TV Sets Meet the Radiation Standard
>>
>> Manufacturers of television receivers and computer monitors contain
>> CRTs must certify that their products meets performance standard
>> under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
>> 1020.10. All TV manufacturers must submit written radiation safety
>> reports to FDA outlining how they assure that each set coming off
>> the assembly line complies with the Federal x-ray radiation limit.
>> These reports contain a description of the manufacturer's quality
>> control and testing program and the television radiation safety
>> design. Manufacturers also must maintain records of test data and
>> prepare an annual report to FDA summarizing these records. The FDA
>> has the authority to ask for radiation safety data including
>> results of x-ray leakage from selected sets to determine compliance
>> with the standard.
>>
>> Television receivers imported into the United States, which do not
>> meet the standard are not allowed into the country and are
>> destroyed if not exported in 90 days. Importers, however, may
>> petition FDA for permission to correct the violations.
>>
>> How Safe Are TV Sets Today?
>>
>> X-radiation emissions from properly operated TV sets and computer
>> monitors containing CRTs are well controlled and do not present a
>> public health hazard. The FDA standard, and today's technology,
>> such as electronic hold-down safety circuits and regulated power
>> supplies, have effectively eliminated the risk of x-radiation from
>> these products. FDA has not found TVs that violate the standard
>> under normal (home) use conditions.
>>
>> It is important to note also that flat panel TVs incorporating
>> Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) or Plasma displays are not capable of
>> emitting x-radiation. As such these products and are not subject to
>> the FDA standard and do not pose a public health hazard.
> Joyce
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>