some really lame tv commentary
Pam Sorooshian
Watching TV - and checking email at the same time -- I got an email
about how to get my kids to LOVE reading. My kids all three read a lot -
voraciously - so I almost didn't even look at it, but I got curious.....
<Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after 30 seconds of
watching television, the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which
indicate torpid (almost comatose, or very slow) rates of activity. Alpha
brainwaves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of
consciousness. High-frequency alpha waves [sic] do not occur normally
when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland's research implies that
watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.>
First of all - use some common sense - analogous to staring at a blank
wall? Really?
So I googled alpha waves -- first thing I found was this:
Research has found that the ideal state for learning is when the brain
is in a relaxed, but aware state. So when we say relaxed, we do not mean
asleep. We mean relaxed, focussed and aware. At this point the
brainwaves run at about 8 to 12 cycles per seconds or hertz. This is
called the *alpha state*.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
about how to get my kids to LOVE reading. My kids all three read a lot -
voraciously - so I almost didn't even look at it, but I got curious.....
<Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after 30 seconds of
watching television, the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which
indicate torpid (almost comatose, or very slow) rates of activity. Alpha
brainwaves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of
consciousness. High-frequency alpha waves [sic] do not occur normally
when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland's research implies that
watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.>
First of all - use some common sense - analogous to staring at a blank
wall? Really?
So I googled alpha waves -- first thing I found was this:
Research has found that the ideal state for learning is when the brain
is in a relaxed, but aware state. So when we say relaxed, we do not mean
asleep. We mean relaxed, focussed and aware. At this point the
brainwaves run at about 8 to 12 cycles per seconds or hertz. This is
called the *alpha state*.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Mulholland's research implies that
watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank
wall.>
-=-First of all - use some common sense - analogous to staring at a
blank
wall? Really?-=-
Bullshit is bullshit.
That's my problem with all the anti-TV stuff I have ever seen. It
just did not make sense. It didn't overlay truly on my life, nor on
any life I had ever seen or known. It's as though those who write it
are unaware that the people they are writing for have been around
people and televisions at least long enough to learn to read.
Then I'm disturbed by people who read clear bullshit and think
anything like "Hmmm. That makes sense."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank
wall.>
-=-First of all - use some common sense - analogous to staring at a
blank
wall? Really?-=-
Bullshit is bullshit.
That's my problem with all the anti-TV stuff I have ever seen. It
just did not make sense. It didn't overlay truly on my life, nor on
any life I had ever seen or known. It's as though those who write it
are unaware that the people they are writing for have been around
people and televisions at least long enough to learn to read.
Then I'm disturbed by people who read clear bullshit and think
anything like "Hmmm. That makes sense."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
Ken Wilber has been pretty interesting to follow. He meditated to
deeper levels (theta) and even stopped his brainwaves. No he did not
die. Very receptive to new learning states... dunno about theta but
different levels including alpha.
Pretty interesting stuff.
~Katherine
deeper levels (theta) and even stopped his brainwaves. No he did not
die. Very receptive to new learning states... dunno about theta but
different levels including alpha.
Pretty interesting stuff.
~Katherine
On 7/2/10, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
> Watching TV - and checking email at the same time -- I got an email
> about how to get my kids to LOVE reading. My kids all three read a lot -
> voraciously - so I almost didn't even look at it, but I got curious.....
>
> <Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after 30 seconds of
> watching television, the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which
> indicate torpid (almost comatose, or very slow) rates of activity. Alpha
> brainwaves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of
> consciousness. High-frequency alpha waves [sic] do not occur normally
> when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland's research implies that
> watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.>
>
> First of all - use some common sense - analogous to staring at a blank
> wall? Really?
>
> So I googled alpha waves -- first thing I found was this:
>
> Research has found that the ideal state for learning is when the brain
> is in a relaxed, but aware state. So when we say relaxed, we do not mean
> asleep. We mean relaxed, focussed and aware. At this point the
> brainwaves run at about 8 to 12 cycles per seconds or hertz. This is
> called the *alpha state*.
>
> -pam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Pam Sorooshian wrote:
dug into it then to see what had originally been found and how it had
been twisted. Here's what I managed to pull out and pull together.
(It's on my Arguments against arguments against TV page: http://tinyurl.com/374e48k)
find (over and over and over) is a quote from "Battle for Your Mind:
Subliminal Programming" by Dick Sutphen:
associated with spoken and written language, numerical and scientific
skills and reasoning. Right brain activity is associated with musical
and artistic awareness, space and pattern perception, insight,
imagination, generating mental images to compare spatial
relationships. (No connection is made between right brained activities
and being in a trance like state.)
From that list, it makes sense to me that TV watching would be a
right brained activity. I suppose if there's something inherently
wrong with right brained activities, we should stop kids from drawing
and imagining and being insightful.
The text says that alpha waves are present in the EEGs of nearly all
normal individuals when they are awake and resting with their eyes
closed. These waves disappear entirely during sleep. Beta waves
generally appear when the nervous system is active, that is, during
periods of sensory input and mental activity. (Note that it says
generally.)
(Just as an interesting factoid, it says delta waves occur during deep
sleep but they are also normal in an awake infant.)
Another site says alpha waves are brought out by closing the eyes and
by relaxation, and abolished by eye opening or alerting by any
mechanism (thinking, calculating). Alpha waves are the major rhythm
seen in normal relaxed adults - it is present during most of life
especially beyond the thirteenth year when it dominates the resting
tracing. (Alpha waves are also present during meditation and
hypnosis.) And that beta waves are the dominant rhythm in patients who
are alert or anxious or who have their eyes open.
That would suggest people aren't thinking when they watch TV. But does
that make sense? I could list off a huge number of things that I've
learned from watching TV. How can learning take place without
thinking? There is also research into Controlling Computers With
Neural Signals (in Scientific American) which uses Alpha and Mu waves.
If alpha waves stop when thought happens, how could those waves be
used to perform a computer action if we have to stop thinking in order
to generate them?
What it really means is that people enjoy dabbling in pseudo-science.
They are using faulty logic -- hypnosis may generate alpha but that
doesn't mean alpha indicates hypnosis, thinking may generate beta but
that doesn't mean that beta indicates thinking (or that lack of beta
means lack of thinking) -- to draw a conclusion to fit their theory.
To get a more complete picture we need to know what the waves look
like when we're deeply involved in a novel. Or watching a play. Or
playing a video game. Or watching a sporting event. Or painting. Or
gazing down at a sleeping or nursing infant. (Not that it would
indicate anything. It would just be more data on how the brain
operates.) If alpha waves increased during those times, should we stop
those things? Or does it merely mean that "thinking stops alpha waves"
and "beta is present during mental activity" are too simplistic and
don't adequately describe what's going on?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after 30 seconds ofSomeone brought up alpha waves and TV watching several years ago and I
> watching television, the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which
> indicate torpid (almost comatose, or very slow) rates of activity.
> Alpha
> brainwaves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of
> consciousness. High-frequency alpha waves [sic] do not occur normally
> when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland's research implies that
> watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a
> blank wall.>
dug into it then to see what had originally been found and how it had
been twisted. Here's what I managed to pull out and pull together.
(It's on my Arguments against arguments against TV page: http://tinyurl.com/374e48k)
> And, actually a study was done that shows that some children, aCan you site a source for this? I can't seem to find one. What I did
> limited number, do not think while "zoning" in front of the boob
> tube. Some children actually go into an almost sleep/dream state, a
> sort of self-hypnosis in which they brain waves patterns indicate no
> active thought patterns.
>
find (over and over and over) is a quote from "Battle for Your Mind:
Subliminal Programming" by Dick Sutphen:
>> Recent tests by researcher Herbert Krugman showed that, whileLeft brain activity (according to an anatomy and physiology text) is
>> viewers were watching TV, right-brain activity outnumbered left-
>> brain activity by a ratio of two to one. Put more simply, the
>> viewers were in an altered state . . . in trance more often than
>> not. They were getting their Beta-endorphin "fix."
>>
>> To measure attention spans, psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland of
>> the Veterans Hospital in Bedford, Massachusetts, attached young
>> viewers to an EEG machine that was wired to shut the TV set off
>> whenever the children's brains produced a majority of alpha waves.
>> Although the children were told to concentrate, only a few could
>> keep the set on for more than 30 seconds!
associated with spoken and written language, numerical and scientific
skills and reasoning. Right brain activity is associated with musical
and artistic awareness, space and pattern perception, insight,
imagination, generating mental images to compare spatial
relationships. (No connection is made between right brained activities
and being in a trance like state.)
From that list, it makes sense to me that TV watching would be a
right brained activity. I suppose if there's something inherently
wrong with right brained activities, we should stop kids from drawing
and imagining and being insightful.
The text says that alpha waves are present in the EEGs of nearly all
normal individuals when they are awake and resting with their eyes
closed. These waves disappear entirely during sleep. Beta waves
generally appear when the nervous system is active, that is, during
periods of sensory input and mental activity. (Note that it says
generally.)
(Just as an interesting factoid, it says delta waves occur during deep
sleep but they are also normal in an awake infant.)
Another site says alpha waves are brought out by closing the eyes and
by relaxation, and abolished by eye opening or alerting by any
mechanism (thinking, calculating). Alpha waves are the major rhythm
seen in normal relaxed adults - it is present during most of life
especially beyond the thirteenth year when it dominates the resting
tracing. (Alpha waves are also present during meditation and
hypnosis.) And that beta waves are the dominant rhythm in patients who
are alert or anxious or who have their eyes open.
That would suggest people aren't thinking when they watch TV. But does
that make sense? I could list off a huge number of things that I've
learned from watching TV. How can learning take place without
thinking? There is also research into Controlling Computers With
Neural Signals (in Scientific American) which uses Alpha and Mu waves.
If alpha waves stop when thought happens, how could those waves be
used to perform a computer action if we have to stop thinking in order
to generate them?
What it really means is that people enjoy dabbling in pseudo-science.
They are using faulty logic -- hypnosis may generate alpha but that
doesn't mean alpha indicates hypnosis, thinking may generate beta but
that doesn't mean that beta indicates thinking (or that lack of beta
means lack of thinking) -- to draw a conclusion to fit their theory.
To get a more complete picture we need to know what the waves look
like when we're deeply involved in a novel. Or watching a play. Or
playing a video game. Or watching a sporting event. Or painting. Or
gazing down at a sleeping or nursing infant. (Not that it would
indicate anything. It would just be more data on how the brain
operates.) If alpha waves increased during those times, should we stop
those things? Or does it merely mean that "thinking stops alpha waves"
and "beta is present during mental activity" are too simplistic and
don't adequately describe what's going on?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lylaw
>>From that list, it makes sense to me that TV watching would be a
right brained activity. I suppose if there's something inherently
wrong with right brained activities, we should stop kids from drawing
and imagining and being insightful.
+++++++++++++++++++++
this is fascinating in and of itself, because it seems to me that the most common argument I hear against television is that it erodes creativity - and yet artistic, spatial, etc. creativity are inherently right brained! thanks for the fascinating survey of the research joyce! somehow I missed that one on your site!
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marina DeLuca-Howard
>>From that list, it makes sense to me that TV watching would be a
right brained activity. I suppose if there's something inherently
wrong with right brained activities, we should stop kids from drawing
and imagining and being insightful.>>
I watched a lot of television as a child. I remember after watching the
Flintstones my brother and I always would get out paper and markers to draw
our own comics. The more I watched the better my drawings. In other words
watching the Flintstones on tv helped me draw as much as drawing practice or
better. Other things I drew didn't become easier to draw with just practice
alone.
It occurs to me that would make an interesting study. Do right brained
activities get easier for television watchers at the same rate as if they
invested more time in that activity.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ed Wendell
Zachariah (16) always had the TV on while creating fantastic things with legos. Sometimes the creations were connected to the shows but not always. Sometimes they were parallel activities. Which he did a lot. He also had the TV going while doing most anything. Now - just today - he is watching TV and during commercials he is reading. We were watching "The Three Stooges" this morning and he was reading manga during commercials - so not related at all (in my mind anyway ;) I've seen him playing games on the lap top while having the TV on. And he always knows what is going on in a deep way - thinking way ;) He will often pause the TV (thank you DVR) to discuss aspects of what he is watching / listening to and thinking about or to look somthing up on the net to see if that really happened, even close to what happened, etc.
When he was really little I could swear he was so absorbed in his other activity that there was no way he knew what was on the TV but later (sometimes a day or two later) he might mention it and I'd think to myself " well he was aware "
Gotta go - he is begging me to watch TV with him today and it is "John Wayne weekend" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wanted to clean today but he has invited me to watch TV!
I have summers off from work so we spend a lot of time together and watching TV together is one thing we do a lot of ;) and discussing and THINKING ;)
Lisa W.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
When he was really little I could swear he was so absorbed in his other activity that there was no way he knew what was on the TV but later (sometimes a day or two later) he might mention it and I'd think to myself " well he was aware "
Gotta go - he is begging me to watch TV with him today and it is "John Wayne weekend" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wanted to clean today but he has invited me to watch TV!
I have summers off from work so we spend a lot of time together and watching TV together is one thing we do a lot of ;) and discussing and THINKING ;)
Lisa W.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
I have a number of Dick Sutphen's "self-hypnosis" audiotapes from the 1990s and several of his more recent mp3s. The "induction" to each hypnosis session - the process of going from the beta brain waves of being wide awake and externally focussed to the alpha brain waves of being in a daydreamy state and internally focussed - takes about ten minutes. That's before getting to the purpose of the session. As I know from my own experience, any interruption of the induction brings the subject out of the process, so you need, to begin with, to be on your own somewhere quiet where you won't be disturbed for at least 30 minutes (a major reason why self-hypnosis audios were problematic for me in the 1990s). The hypnosis session itself lasts about 10-15 minutes and then there's the shorter process of returning to a wide awake state. Dick Sutphen told me (because I eventually wrote to him and asked) that, usually, before a change of belief or behaviour is likely to occur, a hypnosis session would need to be experienced daily for at least 90 days. That's 90 consecutive days.
Since I've been on the internet, the idea of "subliminal programming" has been hugely popularised for commercial reasons. The whole "quick and easy" thing - *because* changing beliefs and behaviour requires such a determined effort and high level of commitment and that doesn't sell in an age of "instant gratification". Often the "Eat Popcorn and Drink Coke" story is cited as evidence that subliminal programming works - described and debunked in this article about "self-help snake oil" generally by Stephen Kraus, PhD.:
http://www.psychotherapy.net/article/Self_Help_Snake_Oil
Bob
>Is that article more about deliberate propaganda than TV watching? I vaguely remember reading it years ago.
>
> >
> Can you site a source for this? I can't seem to find one. What I did
> find (over and over and over) is a quote from "Battle for Your Mind:
> Subliminal Programming" by Dick Sutphen:
>
>
I have a number of Dick Sutphen's "self-hypnosis" audiotapes from the 1990s and several of his more recent mp3s. The "induction" to each hypnosis session - the process of going from the beta brain waves of being wide awake and externally focussed to the alpha brain waves of being in a daydreamy state and internally focussed - takes about ten minutes. That's before getting to the purpose of the session. As I know from my own experience, any interruption of the induction brings the subject out of the process, so you need, to begin with, to be on your own somewhere quiet where you won't be disturbed for at least 30 minutes (a major reason why self-hypnosis audios were problematic for me in the 1990s). The hypnosis session itself lasts about 10-15 minutes and then there's the shorter process of returning to a wide awake state. Dick Sutphen told me (because I eventually wrote to him and asked) that, usually, before a change of belief or behaviour is likely to occur, a hypnosis session would need to be experienced daily for at least 90 days. That's 90 consecutive days.
Since I've been on the internet, the idea of "subliminal programming" has been hugely popularised for commercial reasons. The whole "quick and easy" thing - *because* changing beliefs and behaviour requires such a determined effort and high level of commitment and that doesn't sell in an age of "instant gratification". Often the "Eat Popcorn and Drink Coke" story is cited as evidence that subliminal programming works - described and debunked in this article about "self-help snake oil" generally by Stephen Kraus, PhD.:
http://www.psychotherapy.net/article/Self_Help_Snake_Oil
Bob
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jul 5, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Bob Collier wrote:
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/sutphen.html
Not sure that was on line at the time I wrote what I did. As far as I
remember, none of the anti-TV people I read was citing the research
done by Krugman or Mulholland, just citing Dick Sutphen citing the
research. When someone doesn't care what research means, only if it
sounds like it supports their theory, I guess it doesn't matter how
deeply you dig into the sources ;-)
getting there. So I'm guessing it's not just alpha waves alone that
indicates hypnosis or meditation if Mulholland found they were in the
majority after 30 seconds of watching TV. (I wonder if the same is
true when a play starts which in essence isn't any different from TV.
Reading might be different since the brain needs to decode to get to
the story.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Is that article more about deliberate propaganda than TV watching? IHere's the essay:
> vaguely remember reading it years ago.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/sutphen.html
Not sure that was on line at the time I wrote what I did. As far as I
remember, none of the anti-TV people I read was citing the research
done by Krugman or Mulholland, just citing Dick Sutphen citing the
research. When someone doesn't care what research means, only if it
sounds like it supports their theory, I guess it doesn't matter how
deeply you dig into the sources ;-)
> the process of going from the beta brain waves of being wide awakeYes, I find the same with meditation. The first 10 minutes is spent
> and externally focussed to the alpha brain waves of being in a
> daydreamy state and internally focussed - takes about ten minutes
getting there. So I'm guessing it's not just alpha waves alone that
indicates hypnosis or meditation if Mulholland found they were in the
majority after 30 seconds of watching TV. (I wonder if the same is
true when a play starts which in essence isn't any different from TV.
Reading might be different since the brain needs to decode to get to
the story.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
AlexS
Loving this conversation, and wondering if someone can help me with this assertion from the blog from a local group I joined and then never did anything with when I figured out they were hysterically anti-TV:
_____________________________________________________________________
For those who are not familiar with the brain, there are three components (triune brain model) that control different types of functioning.
*There is the Neo-Cortex which is responsible for higher level thinking, language, conscious thought, problem solving, sensory perception, and reasoning. It is part of the mammal brain only and really defines us as human in many ways.
*There is the Limbic System which is responsible for behavior, emotions, long term memory, and olfaction.
and then there is the:
*Reptilian Brain or R-complex which is the basic fight or flight level of the brain responsible for rage, protection, and basic survival mechanisms.
When children watch television, the screen they are viewing places them in the reptilian part of their brain where they are incapable of the the other levels of functioning. Their heart and respiratory rates increase and they are simply taking in input and analyzing it for no more than basic information...
Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that information is not happening.
Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird.
_____________________________________________________________________
I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but she's the former head of a preschool and has done lots of research...Anyone familiar with research this came from?
Alex
mama to Katya, 3 yrs
_____________________________________________________________________
For those who are not familiar with the brain, there are three components (triune brain model) that control different types of functioning.
*There is the Neo-Cortex which is responsible for higher level thinking, language, conscious thought, problem solving, sensory perception, and reasoning. It is part of the mammal brain only and really defines us as human in many ways.
*There is the Limbic System which is responsible for behavior, emotions, long term memory, and olfaction.
and then there is the:
*Reptilian Brain or R-complex which is the basic fight or flight level of the brain responsible for rage, protection, and basic survival mechanisms.
When children watch television, the screen they are viewing places them in the reptilian part of their brain where they are incapable of the the other levels of functioning. Their heart and respiratory rates increase and they are simply taking in input and analyzing it for no more than basic information...
Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that information is not happening.
Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird.
_____________________________________________________________________
I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but she's the former head of a preschool and has done lots of research...Anyone familiar with research this came from?
Alex
mama to Katya, 3 yrs
Jenny Cyphers
***When children watch television, the screen they are viewing places them in the reptilian part of their brain where they are incapable of the the other levels of functioning. Their heart and respiratory rates increase and they are simply taking in input and analyzing it for no more than basic information...
Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that information is not happening.
Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird.***
I'd say, prove it! Really, how does she know this to be true? Not only does it fly in the face of logical reasoning, how does she KNOW that watching TV puts a child into reptilian brain activities? That actually seems absurd to me, since it is, according to her, the part of the brain for fight or flight. That, to me, puts it automatically out of the realm of TV watching. Otherwise the person doing the TV watching would be fighting or flighting. I'd say that TV watching would be more in line with the Neo-Cortex and the Limbic System. Even more so, since she says a child will stay in that state unable to absorb new information after watching Sesame Street, which would put it clearly in those latter 2, conscious thought, sensory perception, behavior, long term memory, etc.
She's doing and "If, then", but her "then" portion doesn't match up with her "if" portion, not even remotely!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that information is not happening.
Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird.***
I'd say, prove it! Really, how does she know this to be true? Not only does it fly in the face of logical reasoning, how does she KNOW that watching TV puts a child into reptilian brain activities? That actually seems absurd to me, since it is, according to her, the part of the brain for fight or flight. That, to me, puts it automatically out of the realm of TV watching. Otherwise the person doing the TV watching would be fighting or flighting. I'd say that TV watching would be more in line with the Neo-Cortex and the Limbic System. Even more so, since she says a child will stay in that state unable to absorb new information after watching Sesame Street, which would put it clearly in those latter 2, conscious thought, sensory perception, behavior, long term memory, etc.
She's doing and "If, then", but her "then" portion doesn't match up with her "if" portion, not even remotely!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RobynC
> Loving this conversation, and wondering if someone can help me with this assertion from the blog from a local group I joined and then never did anything with when I figured out they were hysterically anti-TV:This division of the brain into partitioned systems responsible for different functions is an idea whose time is passing.
> For those who are not familiar with the brain, there are three components (triune brain model) that control different types of functioning. >>>>
I know I have relatively recently seen a study applying brain mapping technology where the researchers were surprised by the amount of activity all over the brain from stimuli, instead of the localized sparking they expected. The idea that the brain is way more complex than anyone thinks was the crux of the conclusion. There is a lot more gestalt going on in the brain.
Of course I saw it on tv, so I may have gone blank for a time.
I also saw a cool program about people surviving disaster situations because they remembered something useful they saw on various Discovery channel programs. These included a child who survived 40 minutes buried in an avalanche of snow who remembered to create air pockets as he was swept away, and a couple trapped in a car in a snowy wilderness who were able to manufacture snow shoes from their car seats.
I point out that these folks remembered the lifesaving tips in situations of extreme stress and fear. Maybe this is a case for making examinations super scary?
See? It's actually very easy to jump from useful information to bullshit in one sentence. ;)
BTW - it's OK to leave a blog or online group that you don't enjoy.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.robyncoburn.blogspot.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jul 5, 2010, at 4:11 PM, AlexS wrote:
fear appearing stupid if they question it.
But the above only makes sense to someone who is cobbling together a
picture of a reality she's never experienced, at least not with any
objectivity.
doesn't support it! Are people so unsure of themselves, so full of
fear that they're more willing to believe someone who can speak with
conviction than their own powers of observation? (Actually I know
that's true. And it's sad. Well, really, it sounds like their
reptilian brains are overtaking their neo-cortex! Which is pretty much
what fear does.
I *would* ask if there was a wide range of experiences -- not just the
ones they'd expect like watching fights or some such ;-) but baby
nursing, ballet, playing Monopoly, reading, studying something
frustrating ;-) and so on -- studied to see which and how much each
trigger the reptilian brain, but I don't see any research that even
supports TV triggering it. Real scientists look for patterns of
behavior, they don't merely test one thing to see if it's true.
I did a quick search on the reptilian brain and TV and turn up this:
http://www.eruptingmind.com/effects-of-tv-on-brain/
which links to:
http://www.eruptingmind.com/reptilian-brain-behavior/
But that's the only place I saw it glancing at the top few dozen
results. So even other TV fear mongers don't take it seriously. ;-)
You could reply and say that's interesting and does she have any
research -- not just articles from other TV haters! -- that supports
it, that you'd like to look into it.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When children watch television, the screen they are viewing placesIf someone says something with enough conviction and authority people
> them in the reptilian part of their brain where they are incapable
> of the the other levels of functioning. Their heart and respiratory
> rates increase and they are simply taking in input and analyzing it
> for no more than basic information...
>
> Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from
> educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought
> is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but
> the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that
> information is not happening.
fear appearing stupid if they question it.
But the above only makes sense to someone who is cobbling together a
picture of a reality she's never experienced, at least not with any
objectivity.
> Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much fromIt's easy to hold onto a theory if you just dismiss any data that
> educational TV". This is not possible
doesn't support it! Are people so unsure of themselves, so full of
fear that they're more willing to believe someone who can speak with
conviction than their own powers of observation? (Actually I know
that's true. And it's sad. Well, really, it sounds like their
reptilian brains are overtaking their neo-cortex! Which is pretty much
what fear does.
I *would* ask if there was a wide range of experiences -- not just the
ones they'd expect like watching fights or some such ;-) but baby
nursing, ballet, playing Monopoly, reading, studying something
frustrating ;-) and so on -- studied to see which and how much each
trigger the reptilian brain, but I don't see any research that even
supports TV triggering it. Real scientists look for patterns of
behavior, they don't merely test one thing to see if it's true.
I did a quick search on the reptilian brain and TV and turn up this:
http://www.eruptingmind.com/effects-of-tv-on-brain/
which links to:
http://www.eruptingmind.com/reptilian-brain-behavior/
But that's the only place I saw it glancing at the top few dozen
results. So even other TV fear mongers don't take it seriously. ;-)
You could reply and say that's interesting and does she have any
research -- not just articles from other TV haters! -- that supports
it, that you'd like to look into it.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
gloriabluestocking
On the topic of antiTV, I'd really like to hear your takes on some of the values 'promoted' in television shows.
How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values that are at odds with your own? For instance, many shows geared towards children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, and present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.
Enthusiastically in the process of deschooling,
Jenny
How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values that are at odds with your own? For instance, many shows geared towards children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, and present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.
Enthusiastically in the process of deschooling,
Jenny
Sandra Dodd
-=-I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but she's the former head of a
preschool and has done lots of research...-=-
It sounds ridiculous even if she had a PhD in proving how reptiles
watched TV.
Former head of a preschool isn't as impressive to me as "unschooled
five years and really observed her own children clearly."
I think that for the purposes of this list, her qualifications don't
have any validity.
"Lots of research" in the real world means actually doing research,
scientific-method style.
In college-of-education world, it more often means reading summaries
of research chosen for supporting school systems.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
preschool and has done lots of research...-=-
It sounds ridiculous even if she had a PhD in proving how reptiles
watched TV.
Former head of a preschool isn't as impressive to me as "unschooled
five years and really observed her own children clearly."
I think that for the purposes of this list, her qualifications don't
have any validity.
"Lots of research" in the real world means actually doing research,
scientific-method style.
In college-of-education world, it more often means reading summaries
of research chosen for supporting school systems.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
gruvystarchild
I'm trying to figure out just HOW tv places you into your "reptilian" brain functions....so far I've been able to talk (as have my children) when watching tv. If one was really at the "reptilian" functioning level, one would not be able to even utilize language. What a joke!
http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html
Ren
radicalunschooling.blogspot.com
http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html
Ren
radicalunschooling.blogspot.com
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
About five years ago, maybe four, I trialled something called Think Right Now For Windows on my computer. That was something more like the "eat popcorn and drink coke" idea - messages flashed onto the screen for a fraction of a second that supposedly bypassed my critical faculties and went directly into my subconscious mind. So, I could sit at my computer all day happily doing whatever I was doing while subliminally reprogramming myself. No sweat, no hours in the gym, etc. There was another version of this being heavily promoted at the time as technology the government tried to ban (alluding to the eat popcorn thing) - buy it now while you still can and that kind of line. After 30 days of using the Think Right Now software it had produced no noticeable effect and I wrote it off as a waste of $25.
I think there's a major problem with claims about subliminal programming, certainly in the world of "personal development" in my own experience, in that nobody who uses it uses it on its own. So it's often the case that somebody will claim "subliminal programming works" but when they're questioned it turns out they're doing other things as well, maybe listening to hypnosis audios, practising "creative visualization", attending workshops, hanging out at online forums, reading the 'right' books, or whatever, and they're actually in circumstances where their life is improving because of their "personal development regime", which includes subliminal programming therefore subliminal programming must be a contributing factor, therefore subliminal programming must work.
There's an awful lot of "mind control" tosh doing the rounds these days, in my opinion.
Bob
>Hmm... Dick Sutphen seems convinced that subliminal programming works but I'm not. His tapes that I used in the 1990s have a hypnosis session on side 1 and subliminal suggestions embedded into music on side 2 and they're supposed to be used in conjunction with each other - side 1 once a day, side 2 as often as you like. Listening to side 2 as often as I liked reminded me of the time in the early 80s when my first step to quitting smoking was buying "extra mild" cigarettes that I had to suck on like a vacuum cleaner on steroids, as the saying goes, to get any sensation at all that I was actually smoking a cigarette; it was such an unsatisfying experience I was smoking more cigarettes to compensate, which in fact was the worst possible outcome, so I dropped that idea. With Dick Sutphen's tapes, I was sometimes listening to side 2 over and over for hours on end and that was wearing and very unsatisfying. If there was any effect at all I think it would have come from knowing already what the "subliminal" messages were and being reminded of them when I heard the music. That would be "programming" by association if anything ("anchoring" as they call it in NLP), not subliminal programming. But I don't think there was any effect. Side 2 always seemed like it was just music.
>
> On Jul 5, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Bob Collier wrote:
>
> > Is that article more about deliberate propaganda than TV watching? I
> > vaguely remember reading it years ago.
>
> Here's the essay:
>
> http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/sutphen.html
>
> Not sure that was on line at the time I wrote what I did. As far as I
> remember, none of the anti-TV people I read was citing the research
> done by Krugman or Mulholland, just citing Dick Sutphen citing the
> research. When someone doesn't care what research means, only if it
> sounds like it supports their theory, I guess it doesn't matter how
> deeply you dig into the sources ;-)
About five years ago, maybe four, I trialled something called Think Right Now For Windows on my computer. That was something more like the "eat popcorn and drink coke" idea - messages flashed onto the screen for a fraction of a second that supposedly bypassed my critical faculties and went directly into my subconscious mind. So, I could sit at my computer all day happily doing whatever I was doing while subliminally reprogramming myself. No sweat, no hours in the gym, etc. There was another version of this being heavily promoted at the time as technology the government tried to ban (alluding to the eat popcorn thing) - buy it now while you still can and that kind of line. After 30 days of using the Think Right Now software it had produced no noticeable effect and I wrote it off as a waste of $25.
I think there's a major problem with claims about subliminal programming, certainly in the world of "personal development" in my own experience, in that nobody who uses it uses it on its own. So it's often the case that somebody will claim "subliminal programming works" but when they're questioned it turns out they're doing other things as well, maybe listening to hypnosis audios, practising "creative visualization", attending workshops, hanging out at online forums, reading the 'right' books, or whatever, and they're actually in circumstances where their life is improving because of their "personal development regime", which includes subliminal programming therefore subliminal programming must be a contributing factor, therefore subliminal programming must work.
There's an awful lot of "mind control" tosh doing the rounds these days, in my opinion.
Bob
Sandra Dodd
-=-How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting
values that are at odds with your own? -=-
My kids never did believe anything blindly.
And nobody is forcing their kids to watch TV.
There are children's books with values at odds with my own, and there
always will be.
Helping children live in the world is better than trying to hide the
world from our kids, I think.
What lots of families mean by "watching tv" is videos anyway--often,
with young children, the same videos over and over.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
values that are at odds with your own? -=-
My kids never did believe anything blindly.
And nobody is forcing their kids to watch TV.
There are children's books with values at odds with my own, and there
always will be.
Helping children live in the world is better than trying to hide the
world from our kids, I think.
What lots of families mean by "watching tv" is videos anyway--often,
with young children, the same videos over and over.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-There's an awful lot of "mind control" tosh doing the rounds these
days, in my opinion.-=-
And those people who repeat and believe it must have very easily
controlled minds.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
days, in my opinion.-=-
And those people who repeat and believe it must have very easily
controlled minds.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
I'd say "prove it!" too. It's a definitive assertion that I would disregard entirely without supporting evidence.
I had a run-in a few weeks ago with a PhD who made a similar kind of statement about violent videogames. Her 'definitely 110% true' assertion was that research had shown "conclusively" that playing violent videogames produces violent behaviour. So I said the research couldn't be "conclusive" because it hadn't included my son who's played violent videogames for many years and is one of the most pleasant and delightful teenage boys I've ever known. She went off in a huff.
I suspect this lady would go off in a huff too if she was called out. Finding the facts is not what she's about.
"Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird."
Hmm... I'd say that's bullsh*t.
Bob
>LOL
> ***When children watch television, the screen they are viewing places them in the reptilian part of their brain where they are incapable of the the other levels of functioning. Their heart and respiratory rates increase and they are simply taking in input and analyzing it for no more than basic information...
>
> Now I have heard many people say, "but my child learns so much from educational TV". This is not possible because higher level thought is not possible. They will be able to repeat what they heard, but the actual processing, understanding, and assimilation of that information is not happening.
>
> Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird.***
>
> I'd say, prove it! Really, how does she know this to be true? Not only does it fly in the face of logical reasoning, how does she KNOW that watching TV puts a child into reptilian brain activities?
>
>
>
I'd say "prove it!" too. It's a definitive assertion that I would disregard entirely without supporting evidence.
I had a run-in a few weeks ago with a PhD who made a similar kind of statement about violent videogames. Her 'definitely 110% true' assertion was that research had shown "conclusively" that playing violent videogames produces violent behaviour. So I said the research couldn't be "conclusive" because it hadn't included my son who's played violent videogames for many years and is one of the most pleasant and delightful teenage boys I've ever known. She went off in a huff.
I suspect this lady would go off in a huff too if she was called out. Finding the facts is not what she's about.
"Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours! So if say, your child watch a bit of Sesame Street in the morning just before a visit to the museum or even a play date with her friend, it is likely she will not be able to take in any beneficial input or experiences due to the assault that just happened in the form of big bird."
Hmm... I'd say that's bullsh*t.
Bob
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
Bob
>There's a hypnotist in the UK called Jonathan Chase who reckons that all he has to say to most people is "I'm a hypnotist" and half his work is done because what they believe about hypnotism creates an assumption that he has the power to control their mind, and he's happy to oblige.
> -=-There's an awful lot of "mind control" tosh doing the rounds these
> days, in my opinion.-=-
>
> And those people who repeat and believe it must have very easily
> controlled minds.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Bob
wtexans
===How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values that are at odds with your own? For instance, many shows geared towards children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, and present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.===
My son figured out on his own that much of what is depicted in sitcoms is not remotely how we live our lives, and he figured it out pretty young. If we'd restricted those shows because some of the values were at odds with our own, we would have taken away the opportunity for our son to come to that realization himself. And we also would've missed some entertaining tv along the way :).
He knows that in real families sibling rivalry exists but also that those same siblings will have each other's backs and do kind things for each other -- many of the sitcoms we watch together depict that as well.
Watching Pokemon turned him on to the Pokemon action figures and card game and video games -- he spent a lot of money over the years on Pokemon things, BUT it was a huge passion of his during those years. He wasn't too interested in too much other tv show-related stuff, and he had no interest at all in which clothes are cool, which shoes are cool, which cellphone is cool, etc. His main passions now are not at all related to tv shows or commercials.
He will tell you he dislikes that parents, especially dads, are often portrayed as idiots, but on some of the shows we watched we really liked the parents (Phil of the Future comes to mind). We wouldn't have discovered that if we'd not watched the shows. Ironically, our most recent experience with parent/child conflict being seen as cool happened while we watched fireworks over the weekend -- a group of older teens behind us were being pretty tacky about their parents (who were not with them).
You know, you can totally avoid tv yet still walk into the nearest Walmart or take your child to the local park and experience plenty of values at odds with your own!!
Also, don't automatically assume your kids are picking up on the same things you're picking up on in tv shows. Ask them what they like about this show or that show while you watch it with them. See the shows they like from a different perspective.
Glenda
My son figured out on his own that much of what is depicted in sitcoms is not remotely how we live our lives, and he figured it out pretty young. If we'd restricted those shows because some of the values were at odds with our own, we would have taken away the opportunity for our son to come to that realization himself. And we also would've missed some entertaining tv along the way :).
He knows that in real families sibling rivalry exists but also that those same siblings will have each other's backs and do kind things for each other -- many of the sitcoms we watch together depict that as well.
Watching Pokemon turned him on to the Pokemon action figures and card game and video games -- he spent a lot of money over the years on Pokemon things, BUT it was a huge passion of his during those years. He wasn't too interested in too much other tv show-related stuff, and he had no interest at all in which clothes are cool, which shoes are cool, which cellphone is cool, etc. His main passions now are not at all related to tv shows or commercials.
He will tell you he dislikes that parents, especially dads, are often portrayed as idiots, but on some of the shows we watched we really liked the parents (Phil of the Future comes to mind). We wouldn't have discovered that if we'd not watched the shows. Ironically, our most recent experience with parent/child conflict being seen as cool happened while we watched fireworks over the weekend -- a group of older teens behind us were being pretty tacky about their parents (who were not with them).
You know, you can totally avoid tv yet still walk into the nearest Walmart or take your child to the local park and experience plenty of values at odds with your own!!
Also, don't automatically assume your kids are picking up on the same things you're picking up on in tv shows. Ask them what they like about this show or that show while you watch it with them. See the shows they like from a different perspective.
Glenda
Sandra Dodd
-=-Now here is the scary part, when your brain is put into reptilian
functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours!-=-
What's more lizard-brained than sex or adrenaline/fear? Neither of
those takes 30 minutes to three hours to recover from.
"The sky is falling" fear-mongering supported by nonsense is amusing,
and it's sad to think that some people are limiting their children's
opportunities for joy and learning because someone who used to teach
pre-school says they can't learn except in pre-school.
Why is she a former director? She didn't do well there? She got
burned out and frustrated? She quit the job to stay home with children?
(I don't need the answer, I just see the possibilities.)
A friend of mine is the director of several pre-schools in town here--
not the buildings, but the personnel. She has a master's in early
childhood ed that she got in one year. Lots of people were in that
one-year program. They certainly did no real research in a year of
cramming in reading and reports. When her boys were young, she
assured her husband that they would never have any imaginations if
they watched movies or videos, so when he was watching a movie at
home, the boys could be in the room and listen (and form pictures in
their minds), but couldn't gaze upon the visuals. They would play
with lego or cars behind the couch to make sure they couldn't see it.
Things changed there, partly because of conversations with me, but I
never asked for a follow-up. When they moved, the big new tv was set
up in such a way that there was nowhere to hide from it. Also they
have rock band and some other video games. But she cared more about
some of the things she read in that one single year (I shudder) of
"master's program" than about observing her own children.
One of the worst things about education as it exists these days,
especially "department of education" education, is that the first
premise is that what you see with your own eyes should be rejected in
favor of the opinion of "a researcher." Then they imagine themselves
to be researchers.
Even though I had wanted to be a teacher from the time I was six years
old, when I went to college at 17 I already knew that the college of
education was not a respected entity. And even though I went to a
place where they were doing and talking real research in the
alternative-education field (disproving school's pet practices), I did
NOT want an education degree because it was a shameful thing compared
to the college of arts and sciences. I got an English degree, minor
in psychology, and then took the education courses on top of that. I
didn't even want a minor in education. (I did enough anthropology for
a minor too, and had I ever known about anthropology before I got
there I might've just studied that and nothing else. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
functioning, it does not come out of it from 30 minutes to 3 hours!-=-
What's more lizard-brained than sex or adrenaline/fear? Neither of
those takes 30 minutes to three hours to recover from.
"The sky is falling" fear-mongering supported by nonsense is amusing,
and it's sad to think that some people are limiting their children's
opportunities for joy and learning because someone who used to teach
pre-school says they can't learn except in pre-school.
Why is she a former director? She didn't do well there? She got
burned out and frustrated? She quit the job to stay home with children?
(I don't need the answer, I just see the possibilities.)
A friend of mine is the director of several pre-schools in town here--
not the buildings, but the personnel. She has a master's in early
childhood ed that she got in one year. Lots of people were in that
one-year program. They certainly did no real research in a year of
cramming in reading and reports. When her boys were young, she
assured her husband that they would never have any imaginations if
they watched movies or videos, so when he was watching a movie at
home, the boys could be in the room and listen (and form pictures in
their minds), but couldn't gaze upon the visuals. They would play
with lego or cars behind the couch to make sure they couldn't see it.
Things changed there, partly because of conversations with me, but I
never asked for a follow-up. When they moved, the big new tv was set
up in such a way that there was nowhere to hide from it. Also they
have rock band and some other video games. But she cared more about
some of the things she read in that one single year (I shudder) of
"master's program" than about observing her own children.
One of the worst things about education as it exists these days,
especially "department of education" education, is that the first
premise is that what you see with your own eyes should be rejected in
favor of the opinion of "a researcher." Then they imagine themselves
to be researchers.
Even though I had wanted to be a teacher from the time I was six years
old, when I went to college at 17 I already knew that the college of
education was not a respected entity. And even though I went to a
place where they were doing and talking real research in the
alternative-education field (disproving school's pet practices), I did
NOT want an education degree because it was a shameful thing compared
to the college of arts and sciences. I got an English degree, minor
in psychology, and then took the education courses on top of that. I
didn't even want a minor in education. (I did enough anthropology for
a minor too, and had I ever known about anthropology before I got
there I might've just studied that and nothing else. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
My 13-year-old daughter watches lots of TV that might be perceived as
promoting consumerism and yet she's very sceptical and capable of deconstructing
the subtext. I think that, because we don't limit the kinds of things
that she can see/read/hear, she's become very media-literate. With the the
bigger picture available to her, she seems able to separate what interests
her from these subtle forms of advertising. But how would you recognize an
ad if you'd never seen one?
Jude xx
<How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values
that are at odds with your own? <For instance, many shows geared towards
children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, <and
present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
promoting consumerism and yet she's very sceptical and capable of deconstructing
the subtext. I think that, because we don't limit the kinds of things
that she can see/read/hear, she's become very media-literate. With the the
bigger picture available to her, she seems able to separate what interests
her from these subtle forms of advertising. But how would you recognize an
ad if you'd never seen one?
Jude xx
<How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values
that are at odds with your own? <For instance, many shows geared towards
children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, <and
present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chris S.
I'm looking for suggestions for TV shows to watch with Zoe (12) that
would have good material for inspiring thinking and talking about
relationships. Relationship dynamics between parents and kids, girls
and boys etc. are all interesting to her and I'd like to find some
shows that we might watch together either online, or on DVDs via
Netflix. I just got an iPad and was excited to find the Netflix app
for it. Supposedly you can watch Instant Watch videos on it. I
haven't tried it yet but am imagining Zoe and I snuggled up in her
bedroom with the iPad in our laps watching together. Any suggestions?
Chris in IA
would have good material for inspiring thinking and talking about
relationships. Relationship dynamics between parents and kids, girls
and boys etc. are all interesting to her and I'd like to find some
shows that we might watch together either online, or on DVDs via
Netflix. I just got an iPad and was excited to find the Netflix app
for it. Supposedly you can watch Instant Watch videos on it. I
haven't tried it yet but am imagining Zoe and I snuggled up in her
bedroom with the iPad in our laps watching together. Any suggestions?
Chris in IA
Pam Sorooshian
On 7/6/2010 7:38 AM, Chris S. wrote:
Roseanne, Cosby Show. But, really, I wouldn't look for shows for that
purpose - I'd look for shows she enjoys for whatever reason. If
relationship is something she's interested in, she'll find that in the
shows she likes.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I'm looking for suggestions for TV shows to watch with Zoe (12) thatDepends on what she likes - but you might try The Gilmore Girls,
> would have good material for inspiring thinking and talking about
> relationships.
Roseanne, Cosby Show. But, really, I wouldn't look for shows for that
purpose - I'd look for shows she enjoys for whatever reason. If
relationship is something she's interested in, she'll find that in the
shows she likes.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
"gloriabluestocking" <gloriabluestocking@...> wrote:
Great, it gives us fodder for conversation. Most of the other families my kids meet have values different from my own - arguably All of them have Some values different from mine, and most make different choices than I do. Television gives us a way to talk about that without the context being "loaded" with personal feelings about people and relationships.
First of all, that's not my perception, but maybe my kids watch different shows than yours. Mine don't watch much in the way of "schooly" shows or family sitcoms. Do you have cable/satellite? I often find people with the worst impressions of television don't - the "free" programming is really not very good, for the most part, so if you want better quality, invest in cable/satellite.
I've yet to meet any unschooling kids who glorify sibling rivalry or conflict with parents, or "consumerism" for that matter. Why would they? Those are all things that are results of kids' not getting enough emotional support. Its not like tv "causes" any of that. If you want to point a finger, point it at a system that tears children away from their parents for eight hours a day five days a week!
---Meredith
>> How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promoting values that are at odds with your own?************
Great, it gives us fodder for conversation. Most of the other families my kids meet have values different from my own - arguably All of them have Some values different from mine, and most make different choices than I do. Television gives us a way to talk about that without the context being "loaded" with personal feelings about people and relationships.
>>For instance, many shows geared towards children seem to glorify sibling rivalry, encourage consumerism, and present parent/child conflict as "cool" or even a rite of passage.**********
First of all, that's not my perception, but maybe my kids watch different shows than yours. Mine don't watch much in the way of "schooly" shows or family sitcoms. Do you have cable/satellite? I often find people with the worst impressions of television don't - the "free" programming is really not very good, for the most part, so if you want better quality, invest in cable/satellite.
I've yet to meet any unschooling kids who glorify sibling rivalry or conflict with parents, or "consumerism" for that matter. Why would they? Those are all things that are results of kids' not getting enough emotional support. Its not like tv "causes" any of that. If you want to point a finger, point it at a system that tears children away from their parents for eight hours a day five days a week!
---Meredith
Amanda's Shoebox
--- In [email protected], "Chris S." <iowaunschoolers@...> wrote:
I have 3 girls that are 14, 13 and almost 11. They really enjoy watching The Middle and Modern Family on Hulu. They also like Dr. Who, Malcolm in the Middle, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Cosby Show, Unnatural History, That's So Raven, Wizards of Waverly Place, Spongebob Squarepants, Fringe and movies based on the books by Jane Austen. They also enjoy decorating/hoarding shows and documentaries on philosophy, religion, food, animals, conspiracy theories, politics and history (especially Ancient Egypt).
Not all of those are specifically relationship focused, but I think pretty much everything ties into relationships in one way or another.
~ Amanda
>######################################################################
> I'm looking for suggestions for TV shows to watch with Zoe (12) that
> would have good material for inspiring thinking and talking about
> relationships. Relationship dynamics between parents and kids, girls and boys etc. are all interesting to her and I'd like to find some shows that we might watch together either online, or on DVDs via Netflix.
I have 3 girls that are 14, 13 and almost 11. They really enjoy watching The Middle and Modern Family on Hulu. They also like Dr. Who, Malcolm in the Middle, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Cosby Show, Unnatural History, That's So Raven, Wizards of Waverly Place, Spongebob Squarepants, Fringe and movies based on the books by Jane Austen. They also enjoy decorating/hoarding shows and documentaries on philosophy, religion, food, animals, conspiracy theories, politics and history (especially Ancient Egypt).
Not all of those are specifically relationship focused, but I think pretty much everything ties into relationships in one way or another.
~ Amanda
Pam Sorooshian
> >> How do you feel about your child seeing lots of messages promotingAnd - on tv the values are often exaggerated for comic or dramatic
> values that are at odds with your own?
> ************
>
> Great, it gives us fodder for conversation. Most of the other families
> my kids meet have values different from my own - arguably All of them
> have.
effect, unlike in friends and family where differences might be glossed
over a lot, in order to get along with each other without open conflict.
I might not say much, if anything, about an actual acquaintance or
friend or extended family member who sleeps around a lot, but Barney
Stimson's behavior on "How I Met Your Mother" is SO extreme and such a
part of the show that the topic of promiscuity can't help but come up.
As much as we might enjoy that show, I'm not in the slightest worried
about my kids (or my husband or myself) thinking of Barney as a good
role model.
Same with shows for little kids.
I wanted to add that the "conversation" is not even necessary. We're
lucky when our kids do talk with us about stuff, but if they don't, it
doesn't mean they are not analyzing and processing and contrasting what
they're watching with their own family dynamics. Thinking.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
Why TV shows and not movies?
There was a discussion somewhere a while back about movies for parents
to watch with kids, I think. I hope I saved some of it.
Good for me! Upper left:
http://sandradodd.com/movies
There was a discussion somewhere a while back about movies for parents
to watch with kids, I think. I hope I saved some of it.
Good for me! Upper left:
http://sandradodd.com/movies