video games always learning post
Heidi
Hello,
I just saw your post and wanted to pass on something privately to you. My brother went through a very similar thing and sometimes still does. He played video games all the time, was extremely moody and treated the rest of us with hostility. Looking back at this with my current knowledge and belief system, I wonder if it may have been an attachment issue. I wonder if anyone suggested that you may have to "woo" your son back to you???
Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be to anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology. If your son is now not just playing video games, but "attaching" to the computer, then things get all out of whack. For me, the attachment is the basis of unschooling. My children are young, so know that I do not know the following by experience, but feel it is a way of viewing children that has been helpful to me in other situations- a helpful lens that gives you things you can do to win your son's heart back without making the video games the enemy.
Hold on To Your Kids, by Gordon Neufeld is a book about attachment theory, and how it goes wrong, and how to draw your children back to you. He is not an unschooler, so that is why I didn't post this, as some people seem hostile to non-unschooling-derrived knowledge. But for me, this opens all the doors to unschooling. I take what helps me from this resource and leave the rest.
I have personally gone from trying to implement attachment parenting, but only knowing specifically how it related to infants/young children, to feeling like I now understand children and human behaviour differently. And I have implemented a few very subtle changes with my two boys (5 and 3) with fantastic results. The theory is that once attachment needs are satisfied, the child's brain can use energy for development and maturation, and enjoyment of life.
So, really, all that to say, if you are interested, check out Dr Neufeld's book and website.
I can see how you want to support your son in his interests, but you want to see him do it in a healthy way. If he is properly attached to you, I believe the rest will come.
Did anyone suggest that you try to get in his space in a friendly way?? See if you can woo him into letting you sit and watch what he is playing. See if you can get a smile and nod from him by entering into his world.
All the best for your son and your family,
In love,
Heidi
I just saw your post and wanted to pass on something privately to you. My brother went through a very similar thing and sometimes still does. He played video games all the time, was extremely moody and treated the rest of us with hostility. Looking back at this with my current knowledge and belief system, I wonder if it may have been an attachment issue. I wonder if anyone suggested that you may have to "woo" your son back to you???
Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be to anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology. If your son is now not just playing video games, but "attaching" to the computer, then things get all out of whack. For me, the attachment is the basis of unschooling. My children are young, so know that I do not know the following by experience, but feel it is a way of viewing children that has been helpful to me in other situations- a helpful lens that gives you things you can do to win your son's heart back without making the video games the enemy.
Hold on To Your Kids, by Gordon Neufeld is a book about attachment theory, and how it goes wrong, and how to draw your children back to you. He is not an unschooler, so that is why I didn't post this, as some people seem hostile to non-unschooling-derrived knowledge. But for me, this opens all the doors to unschooling. I take what helps me from this resource and leave the rest.
I have personally gone from trying to implement attachment parenting, but only knowing specifically how it related to infants/young children, to feeling like I now understand children and human behaviour differently. And I have implemented a few very subtle changes with my two boys (5 and 3) with fantastic results. The theory is that once attachment needs are satisfied, the child's brain can use energy for development and maturation, and enjoyment of life.
So, really, all that to say, if you are interested, check out Dr Neufeld's book and website.
I can see how you want to support your son in his interests, but you want to see him do it in a healthy way. If he is properly attached to you, I believe the rest will come.
Did anyone suggest that you try to get in his space in a friendly way?? See if you can woo him into letting you sit and watch what he is playing. See if you can get a smile and nod from him by entering into his world.
All the best for your son and your family,
In love,
Heidi
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Heidi wrote:
When someone is forced to spend a huge chunk of their hours doing something they wouldn't choose to and may not even believe in, it has a profound effect on how they view the world. We tend to think of kids actions as natural to their ages. But unschooled kids *are* different than schooled kids. They aren't seeking ways to escape from their life. They don't have huge needs for downtime from stress. Their parents aren't disdainful of what they love and supportive of what the parents want the kids to like.
(Or, in the case of stressed kids, recovering?)
If a child was deeply involved in painting a mural or composing a piece of music, ignoring hunger and tiredness signals which made them grumpy, would it be assumed the child was out of whack and need fixed?
If an adult did that, working on something valued by society, would it be assumed as being out of whack? Or would it be seen as a deeply involving passion?
Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a bit off balance itself?
If a person is so absorbed to ignore hunger signals, it's a kindness to bring them food. My husband has done that for me and it feels really wonderful :-)
If a person is repeatedly ignoring tiredness signals, it's a kindness to help them find ways to take a break that fits with their passion.
It's assumed that people who *also* want other points of view are asking and researching in other areas.
But if they want to see an approach to a problem that's grounded in the unschooling philosophy they should feel confident that they can find it hear without needing to wade through a bunch of other approaches. It's convenient not limiting.
If they only play Supernatural episodes in the Supernatural time slot, does that prevent people from seeking out other programs when they don't want to watch Supernatural? Wouldn't it be irritating if the people involved had sporadically decided to put their favorite program on because they didn't want people to feel that Supernatural was the only program available? It would be irritating and suggest they believed their audience were of limited mental capacity?
If someone writes a BBQ cook book and doesn't include recipes from all sorts of other cuisines and diet styles, are they hostile to everything else? Or do they just want to offer a collection that focuses on BBQ recipes?
When someone likes something, they want to explore it until they feel satisfied which might be 10 seconds or a lifetime. When what's discovered is no longer as interesting, a person finds other things that are interesting. I've done that my whole life. I watched my daughter do that. One of her earliest passions was dinosaurs. Then Pokemon. Then the slugbug creatures she made up with her friend. Then Judas Priest and onto other metal bands.
Our role is to give them the time and tools they need to explore. Sometimes those tools will be strategies to explore their interests AND do other things they want to do.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> My brother went through a very similar thing and sometimes still does.Was he unschooled? It's important, not because unschooled kids are superior.
> He played video games all the time, was extremely moody and treated the rest of us with hostility.
When someone is forced to spend a huge chunk of their hours doing something they wouldn't choose to and may not even believe in, it has a profound effect on how they view the world. We tend to think of kids actions as natural to their ages. But unschooled kids *are* different than schooled kids. They aren't seeking ways to escape from their life. They don't have huge needs for downtime from stress. Their parents aren't disdainful of what they love and supportive of what the parents want the kids to like.
> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of findingDid someone take the phenomenon of imprinting that some baby animals will attach to someone or even something as a mother during a certain crucial period early in their lives and expanded that to children fascinated with something that deeply intrigues them?
> an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be to
> anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology.
> If your son is now not just playing video games, but "attaching" to the computer, then things get all out of whack.Why can't it be seen for what it is: liking something? Why turn it into a defect?
(Or, in the case of stressed kids, recovering?)
If a child was deeply involved in painting a mural or composing a piece of music, ignoring hunger and tiredness signals which made them grumpy, would it be assumed the child was out of whack and need fixed?
If an adult did that, working on something valued by society, would it be assumed as being out of whack? Or would it be seen as a deeply involving passion?
> a helpful lens that gives you things you can do to winFor most people it will be a dangerous lens. It will turn an interest into something the child must be detached from.
> your son's heart back without making the video games the enemy.
Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a bit off balance itself?
If a person is so absorbed to ignore hunger signals, it's a kindness to bring them food. My husband has done that for me and it feels really wonderful :-)
If a person is repeatedly ignoring tiredness signals, it's a kindness to help them find ways to take a break that fits with their passion.
> some people seem hostile to non-unschooling-derrived knowledge.The list is a go-to place to find approaches that are grounded in the unschooling philosophy.
It's assumed that people who *also* want other points of view are asking and researching in other areas.
But if they want to see an approach to a problem that's grounded in the unschooling philosophy they should feel confident that they can find it hear without needing to wade through a bunch of other approaches. It's convenient not limiting.
If they only play Supernatural episodes in the Supernatural time slot, does that prevent people from seeking out other programs when they don't want to watch Supernatural? Wouldn't it be irritating if the people involved had sporadically decided to put their favorite program on because they didn't want people to feel that Supernatural was the only program available? It would be irritating and suggest they believed their audience were of limited mental capacity?
If someone writes a BBQ cook book and doesn't include recipes from all sorts of other cuisines and diet styles, are they hostile to everything else? Or do they just want to offer a collection that focuses on BBQ recipes?
> The theory is that once attachment needs are satisfied, the child's brain canToo complex for something that a much simpler explanation will satisfy. Experts want to complicate the world so people need them to explain it.
> use energy for development and maturation, and enjoyment of life.
When someone likes something, they want to explore it until they feel satisfied which might be 10 seconds or a lifetime. When what's discovered is no longer as interesting, a person finds other things that are interesting. I've done that my whole life. I watched my daughter do that. One of her earliest passions was dinosaurs. Then Pokemon. Then the slugbug creatures she made up with her friend. Then Judas Priest and onto other metal bands.
Our role is to give them the time and tools they need to explore. Sometimes those tools will be strategies to explore their interests AND do other things they want to do.
> If he is properly attached to you, I believe the rest will come.A great deal of what's written on the list is about connecting with kids, supporting them as they explore, being someone they want to share what they're doing with, being someone they *like* being around. "Properly attaching" a child sound clinical. It's sounds like what mechanics do when your car is broken. Better is being kind, loving and joyful. It sounds and is and helps people *be* a whole lot more joyful than attaching properly.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be toIs there a reference to go with this? Because it doesn't sound like "Attachment Theory," it sounds like the book "Are You My Mother?"
> anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology.-=-
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
"Heidi" <velascobunch@...> wrote:
I suspect you've misunderstood something significant about attachment theory. To say "the brain is indiscriminate" is to say that there are no survival instincts and no learning takes place. If the brain really was indiscriminate, children would form attachments at random, but they don't. They form and keep attachments because it meets some basic needs. If parents aren't available to meet those needs, kids form other attachments - to teachers, to toys, to imaginary friends, to peers, to stories. But that's not the Only reason kids form attachments, and none of those things are harmful in and of themselves. It is not somehow harmful for a child to feel all warm and fuzzy toward a special blanket or narrative. What's harmful is when those things are a substitute for human closeness.
The trouble is, most of the parenting advice circulating around serves to break down the bonds between parents and children, little by little.
That's good, solid unschooling advice ;) One of the mistakes parents can make is to see a child who is happily engaged in something and use it as a change to go away and do something else - and that's a setup to weaken the relationship. Spend time with your kids. It doesn't have to be All your time, but sit down and be where your child is, watching, being open to helping out or joining in. That goes for watching tv or playing with legos, reading or playing a computer game.
---Meredith
>> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate*************
I suspect you've misunderstood something significant about attachment theory. To say "the brain is indiscriminate" is to say that there are no survival instincts and no learning takes place. If the brain really was indiscriminate, children would form attachments at random, but they don't. They form and keep attachments because it meets some basic needs. If parents aren't available to meet those needs, kids form other attachments - to teachers, to toys, to imaginary friends, to peers, to stories. But that's not the Only reason kids form attachments, and none of those things are harmful in and of themselves. It is not somehow harmful for a child to feel all warm and fuzzy toward a special blanket or narrative. What's harmful is when those things are a substitute for human closeness.
The trouble is, most of the parenting advice circulating around serves to break down the bonds between parents and children, little by little.
>>> Did anyone suggest that you try to get in his space in a friendly way?? See if you can woo him into letting you sit and watch what he is playing. See if you can get a smile and nod from him by entering into his world.*****************
That's good, solid unschooling advice ;) One of the mistakes parents can make is to see a child who is happily engaged in something and use it as a change to go away and do something else - and that's a setup to weaken the relationship. Spend time with your kids. It doesn't have to be All your time, but sit down and be where your child is, watching, being open to helping out or joining in. That goes for watching tv or playing with legos, reading or playing a computer game.
---Meredith
Sandra Dodd
-=-I suspect you've misunderstood something significant about attachment theory. To say "the brain is indiscriminate" is to say that there are no survival instincts and no learning takes place. -=-
Yes, and it also entirely negates things like the scent of the mother (and the mother responding to the scent of the baby). Attachment is augmented or hindered by behavior in early stages. There are biochemical realities that can be assisted and accepted, or denied and prevented.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, and it also entirely negates things like the scent of the mother (and the mother responding to the scent of the baby). Attachment is augmented or hindered by behavior in early stages. There are biochemical realities that can be assisted and accepted, or denied and prevented.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I agree with Sandra as this does not sound like Attachment Theory . If you want to read about Attachment and children all the way to adult I recommend the book Becoming Attached by Robert Karan. Not a light and easy book to read and more academic than your average parenting book.
Alex Polikowsky
________________________________
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] video games always learning post
-=-> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alex Polikowsky
________________________________
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] video games always learning post
-=-> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of finding
> an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be toIs there a reference to go with this? Because it doesn't sound like "Attachment Theory," it sounds like the book "Are You My Mother?"
> anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology.-=-
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fiesta110
Hi,
I wanted to thank all of you who gave your time and energy to respond to
my original post about my son's computer use. We have talked a lot as a
family and things are more peaceful! I did want to share two sites with
you that my husband and I found when we were doing some research into
the gaming world. We shared these with our sons and they were very
interested. The first has a very poignant video created by a man who
was involved with gaming for 3 decades. The second has excellent
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit.
http://blogote.com/ideas/addicted-to-gaming-get-rid-of-gaming-addiction-\
video/4495/
<http://blogote.com/ideas/addicted-to-gaming-get-rid-of-gaming-addiction\
-video/4495/>
http://www.video-game-addiction.org/boys-and-video-games.html
<http://www.video-game-addiction.org/boys-and-video-games.html>
Take care,
Cordelia
I wanted to thank all of you who gave your time and energy to respond to
my original post about my son's computer use. We have talked a lot as a
family and things are more peaceful! I did want to share two sites with
you that my husband and I found when we were doing some research into
the gaming world. We shared these with our sons and they were very
interested. The first has a very poignant video created by a man who
was involved with gaming for 3 decades. The second has excellent
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit.
http://blogote.com/ideas/addicted-to-gaming-get-rid-of-gaming-addiction-\
video/4495/
<http://blogote.com/ideas/addicted-to-gaming-get-rid-of-gaming-addiction\
-video/4495/>
http://www.video-game-addiction.org/boys-and-video-games.html
<http://www.video-game-addiction.org/boys-and-video-games.html>
Take care,
Cordelia
--- In [email protected], "Heidi" <velascobunch@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I just saw your post and wanted to pass on something privately to you.
My brother went through a very similar thing and sometimes still does.
He played video games all the time, was extremely moody and treated the
rest of us with hostility. Looking back at this with my current
knowledge and belief system, I wonder if it may have been an attachment
issue. I wonder if anyone suggested that you may have to "woo" your son
back to you???
>
> Under attachment theory, children's brains have a primary need of
finding an attachment- but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment
can be to anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology. If your son is
now not just playing video games, but "attaching" to the computer, then
things get all out of whack. For me, the attachment is the basis of
unschooling. My children are young, so know that I do not know the
following by experience, but feel it is a way of viewing children that
has been helpful to me in other situations- a helpful lens that gives
you things you can do to win your son's heart back without making the
video games the enemy.
>
> Hold on To Your Kids, by Gordon Neufeld is a book about attachment
theory, and how it goes wrong, and how to draw your children back to
you. He is not an unschooler, so that is why I didn't post this, as some
people seem hostile to non-unschooling-derrived knowledge. But for me,
this opens all the doors to unschooling. I take what helps me from this
resource and leave the rest.
>
> I have personally gone from trying to implement attachment parenting,
but only knowing specifically how it related to infants/young children,
to feeling like I now understand children and human behaviour
differently. And I have implemented a few very subtle changes with my
two boys (5 and 3) with fantastic results. The theory is that once
attachment needs are satisfied, the child's brain can use energy for
development and maturation, and enjoyment of life.
>
> So, really, all that to say, if you are interested, check out Dr
Neufeld's book and website.
>
> I can see how you want to support your son in his interests, but you
want to see him do it in a healthy way. If he is properly attached to
you, I believe the rest will come.
>
> Did anyone suggest that you try to get in his space in a friendly
way?? See if you can woo him into letting you sit and watch what he is
playing. See if you can get a smile and nod from him by entering into
his world.
>
> All the best for your son and your family,
> In love,
> Heidi
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi
Lovely!!
Thank you all! I was hoping to send that as a private email, not to post to the group, but here we are. I apologize for my error.
The reference is Gordon Neufeld, Hold On To Your Kids
The reason I wanted to write a private email, was that I interpreted the original post much differently than other members. I saw that this writer didn't seem MOST concerned about the computer, but about her sons irritability and behaviour changes. I in NO WAY meant to imply that she should get between him and his interests/passions. Further, I didn't really want to go this in depth into the theory presented in the above book because I do not think it is necessary or beneficial for all members, but I hoped that it could be helpful to the author of this post. Also, I did not WANT to share this with the entire group because the author is not an unschooler, and I feel that this is not the place for sharing that type of info. I completely worded it wrong, and it was meant to be an explanation of why I was emailing the author privately. I apologize. I deeply respect unschooling and all of the members here.
Why didn't it go through as a private email to the author of the post??
Damage control and maybe interesting discussion:
I am asking if it is possible that there is a relationship issue (because that is what I felt the original post author was truly concerned with). Not that it is causing him to be on the computer so much, and not that it is caused by him being on the computer so much.
Behaviour: some have suggested he is displaying normal teen behaviour, "cocooning" (any references for this concept??). I do not have teens, and I can therefore not speak to this from experience, so I won't comment. But I am allowed to ask the question: is it normal behaviour for teens?? Could it be a relationship issue?
What I was trying to say has been completely misinterpreted. I would have written it differently if I knew it would be a post, and not a private email.
But, I thank everyone to the challenge to the ideas I presented.
***But unschooled kids *are* different than schooled kids***
I absolutely agree. No, my brother was not unschooled. He did however, have severe attachment issues, so that was the reason I chose to share that experience.
**If a child was deeply involved in painting a mural or composing a piece of
music, ignoring hunger and tiredness signals which made them grumpy, would it be
assumed the child was out of whack and need fixed?
If an adult did that, working on something valued by society, would it be
assumed as being out of whack? Or would it be seen as a deeply involving
passion?*******
Yes, many of the posts touched on these questions. And I don't see the time spent pursuing this passion as an issue, and I don't think the author of the original post did either. The issue is that the child is relating differently to everyone- which may just be "normal teen behaviour", but could it not be evidence of unmet needs???
***For most people it will be a dangerous lens. It will turn an interest into
something the child must be detached from.***
If it was a relationship issue, the solution I would propose would NOT be to detach the child from it, although I can totally see how that could follow from what I wrote. The solution would be to regain a secure attachment with the child, and ensure that you do not compete with any of the child's interests. I believe that coming between a child and something they are interested in is what can create competing attachments that set the parent into a Me vs. the computer battle. That is opposite of what I wanted to convey. I in no way suggest coming between a child and the interest. It's not about detaching, it's about having all the attachments in alignment.
The above responses were to Joyce's post.
**but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be to anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology.**
Eating my words. This is not meant to diminish the very physical attachment of infants. I apologize profoundly for my very clumbsy attempt here. The idea is that the "attachment brain" when suffering an attachment void (which can be physical or emotional in older children) does not discriminate between adult/child/person when finding a replacement. This is from Hold On To Your Kids
***They form and keep attachments
because it meets some basic needs. If parents aren't available to meet those
needs, kids form other attachments - to teachers, to toys, to imaginary friends,
to peers, to stories. But that's not the Only reason kids form attachments, and
none of those things are harmful in and of themselves. It is not somehow harmful
for a child to feel all warm and fuzzy toward a special blanket or narrative.
What's harmful is when those things are a substitute for human closeness.
The trouble is, most of the parenting advice circulating around serves to break
down the bonds between parents and children, little by little.*****
I completely agree with you Meredith on all of the above. Or attach to computer/computer games. I don't think it's harmful to attach to them, as long as the attachment to the parent is primary/secure (ie. the child doesn't have to choose between the computer or mom).
OK, I am 100% embarrassed and sorry if my message seemed to go against what you are all so beautifully promoting.
***Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who
wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a
bit off balance itself?***
Joyce, this is an interesting idea, so I will expand a little on the theory I am using to look at this issue (Hold On to Your Kids, Neufeld). The thought being proposed is that children need to be attached to their parents until they are able to fully "hold on to themselves", until they are fully independent and able to mix with others without compromising themselves. So, it's not about being "more attached" to you than their own interests, it's just the attachments being complementary (as in, do not put yourself against your child's interests).
Deeply sorry if I have wasted your time. This was not my intention. Gladly following the discussions here. Very grateful to be a part of this list.
Heidi
Thank you all! I was hoping to send that as a private email, not to post to the group, but here we are. I apologize for my error.
The reference is Gordon Neufeld, Hold On To Your Kids
The reason I wanted to write a private email, was that I interpreted the original post much differently than other members. I saw that this writer didn't seem MOST concerned about the computer, but about her sons irritability and behaviour changes. I in NO WAY meant to imply that she should get between him and his interests/passions. Further, I didn't really want to go this in depth into the theory presented in the above book because I do not think it is necessary or beneficial for all members, but I hoped that it could be helpful to the author of this post. Also, I did not WANT to share this with the entire group because the author is not an unschooler, and I feel that this is not the place for sharing that type of info. I completely worded it wrong, and it was meant to be an explanation of why I was emailing the author privately. I apologize. I deeply respect unschooling and all of the members here.
Why didn't it go through as a private email to the author of the post??
Damage control and maybe interesting discussion:
I am asking if it is possible that there is a relationship issue (because that is what I felt the original post author was truly concerned with). Not that it is causing him to be on the computer so much, and not that it is caused by him being on the computer so much.
Behaviour: some have suggested he is displaying normal teen behaviour, "cocooning" (any references for this concept??). I do not have teens, and I can therefore not speak to this from experience, so I won't comment. But I am allowed to ask the question: is it normal behaviour for teens?? Could it be a relationship issue?
What I was trying to say has been completely misinterpreted. I would have written it differently if I knew it would be a post, and not a private email.
But, I thank everyone to the challenge to the ideas I presented.
***But unschooled kids *are* different than schooled kids***
I absolutely agree. No, my brother was not unschooled. He did however, have severe attachment issues, so that was the reason I chose to share that experience.
**If a child was deeply involved in painting a mural or composing a piece of
music, ignoring hunger and tiredness signals which made them grumpy, would it be
assumed the child was out of whack and need fixed?
If an adult did that, working on something valued by society, would it be
assumed as being out of whack? Or would it be seen as a deeply involving
passion?*******
Yes, many of the posts touched on these questions. And I don't see the time spent pursuing this passion as an issue, and I don't think the author of the original post did either. The issue is that the child is relating differently to everyone- which may just be "normal teen behaviour", but could it not be evidence of unmet needs???
***For most people it will be a dangerous lens. It will turn an interest into
something the child must be detached from.***
If it was a relationship issue, the solution I would propose would NOT be to detach the child from it, although I can totally see how that could follow from what I wrote. The solution would be to regain a secure attachment with the child, and ensure that you do not compete with any of the child's interests. I believe that coming between a child and something they are interested in is what can create competing attachments that set the parent into a Me vs. the computer battle. That is opposite of what I wanted to convey. I in no way suggest coming between a child and the interest. It's not about detaching, it's about having all the attachments in alignment.
The above responses were to Joyce's post.
**but the brain is indiscriminate, the attachment can be to anyone (adult, peer, etc) or even technology.**
Eating my words. This is not meant to diminish the very physical attachment of infants. I apologize profoundly for my very clumbsy attempt here. The idea is that the "attachment brain" when suffering an attachment void (which can be physical or emotional in older children) does not discriminate between adult/child/person when finding a replacement. This is from Hold On To Your Kids
***They form and keep attachments
because it meets some basic needs. If parents aren't available to meet those
needs, kids form other attachments - to teachers, to toys, to imaginary friends,
to peers, to stories. But that's not the Only reason kids form attachments, and
none of those things are harmful in and of themselves. It is not somehow harmful
for a child to feel all warm and fuzzy toward a special blanket or narrative.
What's harmful is when those things are a substitute for human closeness.
The trouble is, most of the parenting advice circulating around serves to break
down the bonds between parents and children, little by little.*****
I completely agree with you Meredith on all of the above. Or attach to computer/computer games. I don't think it's harmful to attach to them, as long as the attachment to the parent is primary/secure (ie. the child doesn't have to choose between the computer or mom).
OK, I am 100% embarrassed and sorry if my message seemed to go against what you are all so beautifully promoting.
***Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who
wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a
bit off balance itself?***
Joyce, this is an interesting idea, so I will expand a little on the theory I am using to look at this issue (Hold On to Your Kids, Neufeld). The thought being proposed is that children need to be attached to their parents until they are able to fully "hold on to themselves", until they are fully independent and able to mix with others without compromising themselves. So, it's not about being "more attached" to you than their own interests, it's just the attachments being complementary (as in, do not put yourself against your child's interests).
Deeply sorry if I have wasted your time. This was not my intention. Gladly following the discussions here. Very grateful to be a part of this list.
Heidi
Sandra Dodd
-=-Why didn't it go through as a private email to the author of the post??-=-
I saw that you had intended to send it privately. I was going to return it to you and point out the error, but another moderator had already lead it through.
-=-I was hoping to send that as a private email, not to post to the group, but here we are. I apologize for my error.-=-
People don't join Always Learning to make friends on the side, though, or to get an array of private messages. They join to be part of a discussion focussed on what will help them better understand unschooling. So although yahoogroups allows for responding to an author, I don't think such side mail will always be welcome. And I think it's rarely appropriate, especially when it is created to suggest that the discussion on Always Learning is wrong, about what someone needs to help unschooling work better.
-=-I completely worded it wrong, and it was meant to be an explanation of why I was emailing the author privately. I apologize. I deeply respect unschooling and all of the members here.
-=-
Don't go overboard. You can't possibly respect all of the members here. Or if you DO "deeply respect" every one of over 3000 members, then your respect isn't worth much.
The way to show respect for the discussion is to let it unfold where and as it is. Read a little, try a little, wait a while and watch without trying to write to others and suggest that they do NOT read a little, try a little, wait a while and watch.
-=-What I was trying to say has been completely misinterpreted. I would have written it differently if I knew it would be a post, and not a private email.-=-
It would be good to be careful whenever you write anything. The person you send a private e-mail to can share it. If you have different ways of writing depending on whether it's to be seen by a group of experienced unschoolers or whether it will be seen by one person who might think you yourself are an experienced unschoolers, that shows a lack of integrity. It might not be the best move to admit such things.
-=-I apologize profoundly for my very clumbsy attempt here. -=-
Read more and post less, until you're more familiar with the way the discussion works. That's asked of every new member. You should have received two e-mails when you joined the discussion.
As to the kind of cocooning being referred to, go to the archives of the discussion and search there. There's a link at the bottom of each e-mail, or on the left of the page if you're reading this at the website.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I saw that you had intended to send it privately. I was going to return it to you and point out the error, but another moderator had already lead it through.
-=-I was hoping to send that as a private email, not to post to the group, but here we are. I apologize for my error.-=-
People don't join Always Learning to make friends on the side, though, or to get an array of private messages. They join to be part of a discussion focussed on what will help them better understand unschooling. So although yahoogroups allows for responding to an author, I don't think such side mail will always be welcome. And I think it's rarely appropriate, especially when it is created to suggest that the discussion on Always Learning is wrong, about what someone needs to help unschooling work better.
-=-I completely worded it wrong, and it was meant to be an explanation of why I was emailing the author privately. I apologize. I deeply respect unschooling and all of the members here.
-=-
Don't go overboard. You can't possibly respect all of the members here. Or if you DO "deeply respect" every one of over 3000 members, then your respect isn't worth much.
The way to show respect for the discussion is to let it unfold where and as it is. Read a little, try a little, wait a while and watch without trying to write to others and suggest that they do NOT read a little, try a little, wait a while and watch.
-=-What I was trying to say has been completely misinterpreted. I would have written it differently if I knew it would be a post, and not a private email.-=-
It would be good to be careful whenever you write anything. The person you send a private e-mail to can share it. If you have different ways of writing depending on whether it's to be seen by a group of experienced unschoolers or whether it will be seen by one person who might think you yourself are an experienced unschoolers, that shows a lack of integrity. It might not be the best move to admit such things.
-=-I apologize profoundly for my very clumbsy attempt here. -=-
Read more and post less, until you're more familiar with the way the discussion works. That's asked of every new member. You should have received two e-mails when you joined the discussion.
As to the kind of cocooning being referred to, go to the archives of the discussion and search there. There's a link at the bottom of each e-mail, or on the left of the page if you're reading this at the website.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The first has a very poignant video created by a man who
was involved with gaming for 3 decades.-=-
Was he an unschooler?
We could all post poignant videos, biographical poetry or obituary notices of people who were harmed by their parents or by their having grown up lacking in love or in support for living fully in the real world.
It's not the purpose of this discussion.
You found a poignant video asking people not to play video games. I'm not going to watch it. I hear people stirring in the house where we're staying, and we have plans for the day, so I'm going to go and do that.
Part of what we will do will probably involve video games on an iPad while we're waiting. It will probably be Flip Pix Puzzle San Francisco, or Four Elements, or Bees. I will not go downstairs and say "WAIT!! Someone has found a poignant video that says we should not play games."
Had you met any of my children and talked to them about video games, you would never have brought a link to an anti-video game video to an unschooling list. But my kids are just three.
Read here:
http://sandradodd.com/videogames/
This discussion exists for the purpose of discussing unschooling, from the point of view of experienced unschoolers.
Some of those links are outside of unschooling, but many of them are by or involve unschoolers.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
was involved with gaming for 3 decades.-=-
Was he an unschooler?
We could all post poignant videos, biographical poetry or obituary notices of people who were harmed by their parents or by their having grown up lacking in love or in support for living fully in the real world.
It's not the purpose of this discussion.
You found a poignant video asking people not to play video games. I'm not going to watch it. I hear people stirring in the house where we're staying, and we have plans for the day, so I'm going to go and do that.
Part of what we will do will probably involve video games on an iPad while we're waiting. It will probably be Flip Pix Puzzle San Francisco, or Four Elements, or Bees. I will not go downstairs and say "WAIT!! Someone has found a poignant video that says we should not play games."
Had you met any of my children and talked to them about video games, you would never have brought a link to an anti-video game video to an unschooling list. But my kids are just three.
Read here:
http://sandradodd.com/videogames/
This discussion exists for the purpose of discussing unschooling, from the point of view of experienced unschoolers.
Some of those links are outside of unschooling, but many of them are by or involve unschoolers.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:49 PM, fiesta110 wrote:
Most people can gamble, drink alcohol, take prescription drugs, play video games, shop, watch TV, surf the internet and still lead full lives. For some people, though, any of those can become so large that it negatively impacts their lives.
Why the difference? The huge focus in this society is that all of these things are inherently addictive and that some people aren't strong enough to resist their pull.
But if unschooling kids are thrown into the equation, kids who have the hours and freedom to spend on games, TV, internet -- which many do during certain periods of their childhood -- many of them should become adults like that poor man who regrets 30 years of gaming to the detriment of the rest of his life.
And yet they don't. Why? What factors are present or absent in their lives that causes the difference?
It's easy for science to study what can be easily measured and easily eliminated, but harder to study what can't. Researchers can measure how many hours someone plays a game. But it's hard to measure in any meaningful way how happy their lives are. It's hard to measure how stressful their lives are when the biggest stressors in their lives: school and how they're parented and personality, can't be eliminated or measured.
There was a researcher who figured out how to factor in happiness in a study. Most drug studies with rats are done on rats living in cages. And they do become addicted. But they aren't living happy lives. When rats were introduced into a "rat park" -- pretty much a happy place for rats :-) -- they chose plain water over drug laced water. What's counter to the "drugs are addicting" theory is that when the caged, drug taking rats were introduced into the rat park, they too chose plain water and suffered through withdrawal. (I wonder if there was a length of time spent addicted that was too much to be able to function in a normal environment?)
If you haven't read the Rat Park studies, there's a link here:
http://sandradodd.com/protect
including Schuyler's introduction of it in the middle of the page.
Unschooled kids are living in "kid parks" that includes not only physical and stimulation needs, but the social and emotional support tailored to their personalities that they each need. They aren't pressured to be who they aren't. They aren't pressured to spend the majority of their hours living up to someone else's ideal of how they should spend their time. The environment is tailored to their personalities so they get more of what they need more of and less of what they need less of.
People who become addicted are in pain. They feel powerless to change what's causing them pain. These behaviors (gambling, games, internet, etc.) dull the pain. Though there are better coping behaviors, they can all be useful to cope with temporary painful situations. The behaviors don't make what's causing the pain to go away though. Which is where the addiction comes in. Many addicts say they do these things to feel normal.
The way to keep our kids from becoming addicted is to connect with them and support them in pursuing what they find meaningful.
If they were playing to recover from a stressful period (and doing something fun), you've interrupted that process and suggested that feeling you need some down time is wrong.
If they were playing to escape something in their lives that's still there (and doing something fun), it may be more difficult to figure out what it was so you can eliminate it. They may hide what's making them feel better because of embarrassment that they needed, because of fear they're addicted, because they fear it will be taken away.
You've also tainted something fun with a fear of addiction.
Here's something from one of the articles:
First, unschooled kids have way more hours to play. (And these puzzles do need lots of time to solve!) They don't have to try to pack it in between school and homework.
Second, they have parents who are connected with them. Were this boys parents totally unaware this was happening? Why? Was he afraid they'd stop him so somehow hid what was going on? Were the parents trying to "prove" to him how bad games are so left him alone instead of bringing him food and checking up on him to see how things were going?
Video games are empowering, especially for males who are biochemically geared to want that physical power over their environment. The way to meet that power need isn't to take their games away -- not only taking that outlet away but further disempowering them -- but to give them lots of ways to feel powerful to choose from.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> The first has a very poignant video created by a man whoWhy they were spending their time like that is more important than what they were spending it on.
> was involved with gaming for 3 decades. The second has excellent
> information about all things gaming and how to break the habit.
Most people can gamble, drink alcohol, take prescription drugs, play video games, shop, watch TV, surf the internet and still lead full lives. For some people, though, any of those can become so large that it negatively impacts their lives.
Why the difference? The huge focus in this society is that all of these things are inherently addictive and that some people aren't strong enough to resist their pull.
But if unschooling kids are thrown into the equation, kids who have the hours and freedom to spend on games, TV, internet -- which many do during certain periods of their childhood -- many of them should become adults like that poor man who regrets 30 years of gaming to the detriment of the rest of his life.
And yet they don't. Why? What factors are present or absent in their lives that causes the difference?
It's easy for science to study what can be easily measured and easily eliminated, but harder to study what can't. Researchers can measure how many hours someone plays a game. But it's hard to measure in any meaningful way how happy their lives are. It's hard to measure how stressful their lives are when the biggest stressors in their lives: school and how they're parented and personality, can't be eliminated or measured.
There was a researcher who figured out how to factor in happiness in a study. Most drug studies with rats are done on rats living in cages. And they do become addicted. But they aren't living happy lives. When rats were introduced into a "rat park" -- pretty much a happy place for rats :-) -- they chose plain water over drug laced water. What's counter to the "drugs are addicting" theory is that when the caged, drug taking rats were introduced into the rat park, they too chose plain water and suffered through withdrawal. (I wonder if there was a length of time spent addicted that was too much to be able to function in a normal environment?)
If you haven't read the Rat Park studies, there's a link here:
http://sandradodd.com/protect
including Schuyler's introduction of it in the middle of the page.
Unschooled kids are living in "kid parks" that includes not only physical and stimulation needs, but the social and emotional support tailored to their personalities that they each need. They aren't pressured to be who they aren't. They aren't pressured to spend the majority of their hours living up to someone else's ideal of how they should spend their time. The environment is tailored to their personalities so they get more of what they need more of and less of what they need less of.
People who become addicted are in pain. They feel powerless to change what's causing them pain. These behaviors (gambling, games, internet, etc.) dull the pain. Though there are better coping behaviors, they can all be useful to cope with temporary painful situations. The behaviors don't make what's causing the pain to go away though. Which is where the addiction comes in. Many addicts say they do these things to feel normal.
The way to keep our kids from becoming addicted is to connect with them and support them in pursuing what they find meaningful.
> We shared these with our sons and they were very interested.If they were playing out of passionate interest in solving these puzzles, now they have the seed of an idea that passion and addiction are the same. The outside often looks the same. But the inside is completely different. And it's the inside that counts. And the way to find out what's going on inside is by becoming more connected: by playing with them, by listening when they talk about their games, by becoming knowledgable enough to ask interested questions, by supporting them in playing.
If they were playing to recover from a stressful period (and doing something fun), you've interrupted that process and suggested that feeling you need some down time is wrong.
If they were playing to escape something in their lives that's still there (and doing something fun), it may be more difficult to figure out what it was so you can eliminate it. They may hide what's making them feel better because of embarrassment that they needed, because of fear they're addicted, because they fear it will be taken away.
You've also tainted something fun with a fear of addiction.
Here's something from one of the articles:
> After the release of a new version of the infamous MMORPGCan this happen to unschooled games who can spend hours and hours playing a really enthralling game?
> (massive multi-player online role playing game), this 15-year-old
> collapsed and went into convulsions caused by sleep deprivation,
> lack of food, and the prolonged period of concentration playing the game.
First, unschooled kids have way more hours to play. (And these puzzles do need lots of time to solve!) They don't have to try to pack it in between school and homework.
Second, they have parents who are connected with them. Were this boys parents totally unaware this was happening? Why? Was he afraid they'd stop him so somehow hid what was going on? Were the parents trying to "prove" to him how bad games are so left him alone instead of bringing him food and checking up on him to see how things were going?
> The assailants displaying signs of video game addiction are all male.Most addicts of any kind are male. Most on the highest end of intelligence are male. Most on the lowest end of intelligence are male. Most people in prison are male. The difference between males and females extends beyond their "equipment". ;-)
> Coincidence? Probably not, according to research from Stanford University.
Video games are empowering, especially for males who are biochemically geared to want that physical power over their environment. The way to meet that power need isn't to take their games away -- not only taking that outlet away but further disempowering them -- but to give them lots of ways to feel powerful to choose from.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
"Heidi" <velascobunch@...> wrote:
It *is* a relationship issue in the sense that mom and other family members are now seeing their relationship with the kid in question differently. So it's important to look for the underlying causes of that issue, and consider ways to resolve them - and if they even need to be resolved. But a big part of that process involves addressing parental fears about the computer, as the original post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/67727
expressed concerns that computer games were the source of the problem. One of the ways "relationship issues" grow between parents and kids is when kids like something parents don't like, or don't understand. If anything, that's one of the biggest relationship issues parents face - what to do when your kids' interests don't line up with yours?
The other most common way for distance to grow between parents and kids is related to that, but not as dramatic. A kid gets interested in something and parents step back, becoming less involved in that kid's life. If you're into the ideas of "attachment parenting" you could say that parental withdrawal is the most prevalent source of attachment issues. That's one of the reasons longtime radical unschoolers tend to focus heavily on rebuilding relationships when parents bring problems to the list. If you're not seeing that emphasis, then it might be a good idea to read more and write less (that sounds snippy, but you seem to be saying there's not enough focus on relationships when the opposite is true; it's all about the relationships!).
But! At the same time, it is common for young teens to want more quiet time and more time alone. That's a common experience of people with happy teens in supportive relationships - I don't think all teens go through it, some get a lot more social and outgoing, but some get more social and outgoing And spend more time alone. I don't know that there are sources of information on the subject other than the anecdotes of parents in warm, supportive relationships with teens because a. that's not the norm, and b. it's not a problem and therefore can't be solved with education, drugs, or therapy.
In less supportive relationships, things play out differently and there tends to be lots of antagonism between parents and kids. That's "normal teen relationship with parents" and it's something which builds up over years of nos and limits and expectations and parents trying to get kids to be/live a certain way. It's possible that's part of the underlying problem in the original poster's situation - there has been parental restriction on games, and fairly recently, too. There are deschooling issues playing out.
Actually, the ideas of attachment parenting are pretty compatible with the philosophy of unschooling, but the language is weird and artificial and easily sets people up to see pathology where it doesn't exist. It sounds creepy to say "attached to (toys, video games)" as opposed to "likes it". And I've seen parents get really tied up in knots fussing over "attachment" to the point they lose track of what it means. I'd rather encourage people to like their kids, and be likable. Out in the world, it's really uncommon for parents to talk about liking kids - I remember being deeply shocked the first time I heard a parent say "I like my kid". It rocked my world.
---Meredith
>> Behaviour: some have suggested he is displaying normal teen behaviour, "cocooning" (any references for this concept??). I do not have teens, and I can therefore not speak to this from experience, so I won't comment. But I am allowed to ask the question: is it normal behaviour for teens?? Could it be a relationship issue?***************
It *is* a relationship issue in the sense that mom and other family members are now seeing their relationship with the kid in question differently. So it's important to look for the underlying causes of that issue, and consider ways to resolve them - and if they even need to be resolved. But a big part of that process involves addressing parental fears about the computer, as the original post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/67727
expressed concerns that computer games were the source of the problem. One of the ways "relationship issues" grow between parents and kids is when kids like something parents don't like, or don't understand. If anything, that's one of the biggest relationship issues parents face - what to do when your kids' interests don't line up with yours?
The other most common way for distance to grow between parents and kids is related to that, but not as dramatic. A kid gets interested in something and parents step back, becoming less involved in that kid's life. If you're into the ideas of "attachment parenting" you could say that parental withdrawal is the most prevalent source of attachment issues. That's one of the reasons longtime radical unschoolers tend to focus heavily on rebuilding relationships when parents bring problems to the list. If you're not seeing that emphasis, then it might be a good idea to read more and write less (that sounds snippy, but you seem to be saying there's not enough focus on relationships when the opposite is true; it's all about the relationships!).
But! At the same time, it is common for young teens to want more quiet time and more time alone. That's a common experience of people with happy teens in supportive relationships - I don't think all teens go through it, some get a lot more social and outgoing, but some get more social and outgoing And spend more time alone. I don't know that there are sources of information on the subject other than the anecdotes of parents in warm, supportive relationships with teens because a. that's not the norm, and b. it's not a problem and therefore can't be solved with education, drugs, or therapy.
In less supportive relationships, things play out differently and there tends to be lots of antagonism between parents and kids. That's "normal teen relationship with parents" and it's something which builds up over years of nos and limits and expectations and parents trying to get kids to be/live a certain way. It's possible that's part of the underlying problem in the original poster's situation - there has been parental restriction on games, and fairly recently, too. There are deschooling issues playing out.
> OK, I am 100% embarrassed and sorry if my message seemed to go against what you are all so beautifully promoting.**************
Actually, the ideas of attachment parenting are pretty compatible with the philosophy of unschooling, but the language is weird and artificial and easily sets people up to see pathology where it doesn't exist. It sounds creepy to say "attached to (toys, video games)" as opposed to "likes it". And I've seen parents get really tied up in knots fussing over "attachment" to the point they lose track of what it means. I'd rather encourage people to like their kids, and be likable. Out in the world, it's really uncommon for parents to talk about liking kids - I remember being deeply shocked the first time I heard a parent say "I like my kid". It rocked my world.
> Why didn't it go through as a private email to the author of the post??You clicked the wrong button... it happens, and it's by no means the most embarrassing or personal message ever sent to a group by mistake. Unfortunately, on an email list like this we could remove it from the archives, but people would still get the message in personal emails, and you brought up some interesting points. For future reference, it's not inherently bad to quote or suggest non-unschooling books and sources - for one thing, there aren't a lot of books by unschoolers, although there are more every year. And it can be useful to tease apart ideas which help people have better relationships with their kids and ideas which don't and why.
---Meredith
Meredith
Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
There's a Psychology Today blog entitled "The Heart of Addiction" by Lance Dodes, a long time researcher on addiction and substance abuse where he addresses these same ideas and does a fair amount of myth-busting around the common adages where addiction is concerned:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction
>> People who become addicted are in pain. They feel powerless to change what's causing them pain. These behaviors (gambling, games, internet, etc.) dull the pain. Though there are better coping behaviors, they can all be useful to cope with temporary painful situations. The behaviors don't make what's causing the pain to go away though. Which is where the addiction comes in. Many addicts say they do these things to feel normal.******************
There's a Psychology Today blog entitled "The Heart of Addiction" by Lance Dodes, a long time researcher on addiction and substance abuse where he addresses these same ideas and does a fair amount of myth-busting around the common adages where addiction is concerned:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jun 24, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Heidi wrote:
Playing for long, uninterrupted hours can be taxing on the body. So can working long hours. So can pushing your body beyond its limits to do anything that's engrossing.
Parents can help kids do both.
It can also be really helpful for parents to realize this burning game passion won't last forever. Games take a lot of hours to solve, but at some point kids have played enough that there isn't enough new stuff amongst the old stuff challenging them and other things become more interesting.
And age is a big factor. A 12 yo can feel like his emotions control him -- driving him to keep playing despite hunger and tiredness. By the time he's 21 he'll feel less controlled by his emotions, will be more aware of his body's needs, he will have more strategies for meeting simultaneous needs.
So it isn't something that must be fixed. Age will be a big factor in them feeling they have more control. But a parent can, in the meantime, help the kids play games AND do other things. (Rather than the typical approach of games until the parent can't stand it OR other things.)
Why is way more important than what. "What" is a response to some problem. Treating the response as if it's the problem can create even bigger problems in the long run if the underlying cause is still there.
Some parents may not realize the relationship is at fault, though. They may be blaming the relationship on some fault in the kid. Parenting practices that damage relationships often don't become glaringly obvious until kids are teens. That's because young kids need physical and emotional support from their parents. If the parents are only meeting a minimum level, the kids can't trade them in ;-) They've got to make do. (If the parents are really bad, of course, the kids can run away. Or be open to the promises of predators.)
But when kids hit the teen years, they're less needful of the physical support the parents have been used to giving and more needful of feeling supported in who they are as people. And that's when the crap they've been absorbing all these years gets blown back at the parents ;-)
Teens are full of hormones and other changes and it makes them more irritable. So while a teen may get irritated with how a parent has always interacted with them, the best tact isn't to shrug it off and continue. It's to find new ways to interact, to make life less irritable for them. If someone has a headache, it's kind to turn the music down if it's irritating them than to shrug it off because eventually the headache will go away.
Find new strategies, new approaches to create a more peaceful atmosphere for the teens who feel like they have cactuses growing inside of them ;-)
And the parent should read Parent/Teen Breakthrough: the relationship approach by Mira Kirchenbaum.
http://tinyurl.com/3mnbf52
All research is done on schooled kids. If schooled kids are withdrawing, is it biological, is it because of school, is it because of parenting?
Radical unschoolers can eliminate the school and parenting factors. If unschooled kids are showing a pattern of certain behaviors, it's very likely because it's biology.
The more people read here and compare schooled teens with how unschoolers describe their teens the easier it is to see what's caused by school and by conventional parenting. And hopefully people aren't just blindly memorizing that teen surliness is caused by school and authoritarian parenting. Hopefully they're turning these situations over to look at from many angles. And asking questions. And getting a better handle on what relationships and interactions humans need to grow up whole, happy and healthy.
If people skim the list, it's possible they're pick up meaningless sound bites to unschool by like: Let them play video games as much as they want, Always say yes, No bedtimes, Let them eat whatever they want.
But if they read enough, they *should* be absorbing how important the relationship is between parents and kids.They should be picking up how to listen more than talk. They should be picking up how to listen to children's non-verbal language, to see happiness as happiness, to see by a pattern of upsetness that there's something on going beneath it.
Calling it "attachment" adds a layer of muddle to it. It causes play to sound clinical. It causes what's driving the choices to be unclear.
Clear plain English is great at clarifying ideas. Reusing words that have other meanings can cloud someone's vision of what's really going on.
ME: ***Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who
wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a
bit off balance itself?***
It takes a lot of abuse for a kid *not* to be attached to their parents. Kids grow up hugely abused, even come to see it as normal believing they're at fault, because their biology drives them to stay connected. Evolutionarily speaking a bad parent is better than no parent. A bad parent is better than a parent with no genetic relationship. (Speaking pure evolutionary odds: The chances of survival are higher with someone with genetic investment in you than they are with any random adult.)
What kids need isn't attachment. They need to trust that someone cares about their needs and does their best to meet them. If their parents aren't doing that, they'll seek someone or something who will fill the void. Sometimes what they find doesn't fill the void so much as make the void not hurt as much.
Which is much simpler, much clearer, much more useful than:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> The reason I wanted to write a private email, was that I interpretedAnd if you saw what others missed, adding it to the discussion it might help many people who are reading and wondering the same thing. It might also, as it did, create more discussion where ideas get pulled apart and analyzed and made clearer.
> the original post much differently than other members.
> I saw that this writer didn't seem MOST concerned about the computer,If that wasn't addressed, it should have been. (Though I'm pretty sure it was.)
> but about her sons irritability and behaviour changes.
Playing for long, uninterrupted hours can be taxing on the body. So can working long hours. So can pushing your body beyond its limits to do anything that's engrossing.
Parents can help kids do both.
It can also be really helpful for parents to realize this burning game passion won't last forever. Games take a lot of hours to solve, but at some point kids have played enough that there isn't enough new stuff amongst the old stuff challenging them and other things become more interesting.
And age is a big factor. A 12 yo can feel like his emotions control him -- driving him to keep playing despite hunger and tiredness. By the time he's 21 he'll feel less controlled by his emotions, will be more aware of his body's needs, he will have more strategies for meeting simultaneous needs.
So it isn't something that must be fixed. Age will be a big factor in them feeling they have more control. But a parent can, in the meantime, help the kids play games AND do other things. (Rather than the typical approach of games until the parent can't stand it OR other things.)
> The reason I wanted to write a private email, was that I interpretedEveryone should be thinking about the answers posted to see if the interpretation matches their situation. No one should assume anyone has given THE answer to be swallowed thoughtlessly whole. Usually posters reveal more than what they realize by what they write and how they write it. But sometimes they'll leave out a big piece of the puzzle, like not mentioning the child was pulled from school 2 months before, or that they're going through a divorce, or that they just moved.
> the original post much differently than other members.
Why is way more important than what. "What" is a response to some problem. Treating the response as if it's the problem can create even bigger problems in the long run if the underlying cause is still there.
> Why didn't it go through as a private email to the author of the post??Hitting REPLY addresses emails to the list. (Some lists are set so REPLY goes to the original poster.) To reply to the original poster you have to copy and paste their address in. Or use REPLY ALL and remember to delete the Always Learning address.
> I am asking if it is possible that there is a relationship issueThat's an easily asked (rhetorical) question. ;-): How's your relationship with your son?
Some parents may not realize the relationship is at fault, though. They may be blaming the relationship on some fault in the kid. Parenting practices that damage relationships often don't become glaringly obvious until kids are teens. That's because young kids need physical and emotional support from their parents. If the parents are only meeting a minimum level, the kids can't trade them in ;-) They've got to make do. (If the parents are really bad, of course, the kids can run away. Or be open to the promises of predators.)
But when kids hit the teen years, they're less needful of the physical support the parents have been used to giving and more needful of feeling supported in who they are as people. And that's when the crap they've been absorbing all these years gets blown back at the parents ;-)
Teens are full of hormones and other changes and it makes them more irritable. So while a teen may get irritated with how a parent has always interacted with them, the best tact isn't to shrug it off and continue. It's to find new ways to interact, to make life less irritable for them. If someone has a headache, it's kind to turn the music down if it's irritating them than to shrug it off because eventually the headache will go away.
Find new strategies, new approaches to create a more peaceful atmosphere for the teens who feel like they have cactuses growing inside of them ;-)
And the parent should read Parent/Teen Breakthrough: the relationship approach by Mira Kirchenbaum.
http://tinyurl.com/3mnbf52
> Behaviour: some have suggested he is displaying normal teen behaviour, "cocooning" (any references for this concept??).The best references for unschoolers: The powers of observation, the gathering of data and the public discussion of what might be causing any patterns.
All research is done on schooled kids. If schooled kids are withdrawing, is it biological, is it because of school, is it because of parenting?
Radical unschoolers can eliminate the school and parenting factors. If unschooled kids are showing a pattern of certain behaviors, it's very likely because it's biology.
The more people read here and compare schooled teens with how unschoolers describe their teens the easier it is to see what's caused by school and by conventional parenting. And hopefully people aren't just blindly memorizing that teen surliness is caused by school and authoritarian parenting. Hopefully they're turning these situations over to look at from many angles. And asking questions. And getting a better handle on what relationships and interactions humans need to grow up whole, happy and healthy.
> But I am allowed to ask the question: is it normal behaviour for teens?? Could it be a relationship issue?It could be either. Or both at the same time.
If people skim the list, it's possible they're pick up meaningless sound bites to unschool by like: Let them play video games as much as they want, Always say yes, No bedtimes, Let them eat whatever they want.
But if they read enough, they *should* be absorbing how important the relationship is between parents and kids.They should be picking up how to listen more than talk. They should be picking up how to listen to children's non-verbal language, to see happiness as happiness, to see by a pattern of upsetness that there's something on going beneath it.
> I don't think it's harmful to attach to [computer games]I think it's harmful to clear thinking to label playing computer games "attaching" to them. Which is why what you wrote came out unclear. A child who is engrossed by a computer game is playing. A child whose parent isn't as available as much as he needs, who finds solace in playing computer games, is hurting and needful.
Calling it "attachment" adds a layer of muddle to it. It causes play to sound clinical. It causes what's driving the choices to be unclear.
Clear plain English is great at clarifying ideas. Reusing words that have other meanings can cloud someone's vision of what's really going on.
ME: ***Would it bring you more joy, grow a stronger relationship with someone who
wanted you more attached to them than to your interests? Doesn't that sound a
bit off balance itself?***
> Joyce, this is an interesting idea, so I will expand a little on the theory I am usingIn the book? Why who? And does it match what unschoolers see in their own kids?
> to look at this issue (Hold On to Your Kids, Neufeld). The thought being proposed
> is that children need to be attached to their parentsI think labeling what kids need from their parents as "attachment" muddies what's going on and doesn't help parents better understand what their kids need.
It takes a lot of abuse for a kid *not* to be attached to their parents. Kids grow up hugely abused, even come to see it as normal believing they're at fault, because their biology drives them to stay connected. Evolutionarily speaking a bad parent is better than no parent. A bad parent is better than a parent with no genetic relationship. (Speaking pure evolutionary odds: The chances of survival are higher with someone with genetic investment in you than they are with any random adult.)
What kids need isn't attachment. They need to trust that someone cares about their needs and does their best to meet them. If their parents aren't doing that, they'll seek someone or something who will fill the void. Sometimes what they find doesn't fill the void so much as make the void not hurt as much.
Which is much simpler, much clearer, much more useful than:
> children need to be attached to their parents until they are able to fully "holdJoyce
> on to themselves", until they are fully independent and able to mix with others
> without compromising themselves. So, it's not about being "more attached"
> to you than their own interests, it's just the attachments being complementary
> (as in, do not put yourself against your child's interests).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
Did you really find articles to show your child that what he loves is addictive, bad for him and a waste of time????
That video made me sick.
I can go on every point that guy makes and give at least an example of how he is wrong.
Video Games are not going to be in your Resume???
Tell this to Sandra's son who has a job based on hi gaming experience or Dina Marconi's husband Paul that worked many years
playing video games for a living and rating them and now is a New York City Police Officer. Video games were definitely in his resume.
Video Games do not make you smarter or you do not learn anything from it?
There has been lots of stories of people who saved a life or themselves because they learned something playing games. But I do not have to
go very far. I see my son everyday ( and my daughter but she is not an avid player) learning so much from video games it would make you astounded at it. He learned to read because of video games and that is just a fraction of all he has learned!!!
What he wasted hours of his life playing? I have wasted hours of my life reading! Full Summers in my tween years reading Agatha Christie non stop!!!!! Many nights awake because I could not put a book down!!!!!
I mean I can go on and on.
Why not find new awesome games for your son. why not look into the many studies that show how video games are beneficial. There are many many experts that write about that .
So now every time your son wants to play a game he will feel guilty and he will feel bad that he is addicted and video games are more powerful than he is. What a sad and unhelthy way to feel about something you love. Because he will still like them but the conflict inside of him will teard him apart. I am so mad and sad for your son right now that I am going to stop writing.
It is my son's birthday today. He turns 10 and has been an avid gamer for years. He is amazing and has an incredible brain. He is lovely towards young kids and people are always praising him when he is around their little children. He loves to bike with his dad and is back to playing some basketball , which he is very talented at. I cannot imagine how much damage to his self steem and is emotional behavior if I showed him those videos and believed in them ( he is aware of stuff like that and we have talked about it ).
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That video made me sick.
I can go on every point that guy makes and give at least an example of how he is wrong.
Video Games are not going to be in your Resume???
Tell this to Sandra's son who has a job based on hi gaming experience or Dina Marconi's husband Paul that worked many years
playing video games for a living and rating them and now is a New York City Police Officer. Video games were definitely in his resume.
Video Games do not make you smarter or you do not learn anything from it?
There has been lots of stories of people who saved a life or themselves because they learned something playing games. But I do not have to
go very far. I see my son everyday ( and my daughter but she is not an avid player) learning so much from video games it would make you astounded at it. He learned to read because of video games and that is just a fraction of all he has learned!!!
What he wasted hours of his life playing? I have wasted hours of my life reading! Full Summers in my tween years reading Agatha Christie non stop!!!!! Many nights awake because I could not put a book down!!!!!
I mean I can go on and on.
Why not find new awesome games for your son. why not look into the many studies that show how video games are beneficial. There are many many experts that write about that .
So now every time your son wants to play a game he will feel guilty and he will feel bad that he is addicted and video games are more powerful than he is. What a sad and unhelthy way to feel about something you love. Because he will still like them but the conflict inside of him will teard him apart. I am so mad and sad for your son right now that I am going to stop writing.
It is my son's birthday today. He turns 10 and has been an avid gamer for years. He is amazing and has an incredible brain. He is lovely towards young kids and people are always praising him when he is around their little children. He loves to bike with his dad and is back to playing some basketball , which he is very talented at. I cannot imagine how much damage to his self steem and is emotional behavior if I showed him those videos and believed in them ( he is aware of stuff like that and we have talked about it ).
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-So now every time your son wants to play a game he will feel guilty and he will feel bad that he is addicted and video games are more powerful than he is. What a sad and unhelthy way to feel about something you love. -=-
Anytime he feels he wants to enjoy a game, he will feel he is choosing that over his mother, but he will probably choose it anyway.
That is not good for bonding, for relationships, for trust, for communications. There is nothing on earth it is good for.
Alex, I'm sorry you watched the video and got upset. I knew better than to do it.
If I could have all the hours back that I've spent writing about unschooling for people who aren't even half ready to get it, would that make my life better? Longer? More "productive"?
I don't think so at all. Even if nobody's gleaning a thing from what I'm writing, I'm getting more practice at describing these ideas clearly. And I love to read what Joyce writes, and so many others here who will also take real time from their real lives to attempt to help other people understand how they can create better trust and relationships with their children so that the children can learn freely from the whole world. The parents need to learn first, and most, to get it all going, though.
Each and every time someone comes here and is resistant and argues and tries to defend an indefensible position, a dozen other people see that, and start to predict what the regular posters will write, and they start to really understand why we keep doing what we're doing.
Some of the resistant defenders see it too, but even if they don't, a few things happen:
1) they might think about what we've written and make changes later, without telling us
2) they might try the ideas out and find that it helps, and stick around for more ideas
Either of those is good for their children.
3) they might continue to think we're wrong, and keep limiting and shaming their kids.
That is not good for their children, but it doesn't harm this discussion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anytime he feels he wants to enjoy a game, he will feel he is choosing that over his mother, but he will probably choose it anyway.
That is not good for bonding, for relationships, for trust, for communications. There is nothing on earth it is good for.
Alex, I'm sorry you watched the video and got upset. I knew better than to do it.
If I could have all the hours back that I've spent writing about unschooling for people who aren't even half ready to get it, would that make my life better? Longer? More "productive"?
I don't think so at all. Even if nobody's gleaning a thing from what I'm writing, I'm getting more practice at describing these ideas clearly. And I love to read what Joyce writes, and so many others here who will also take real time from their real lives to attempt to help other people understand how they can create better trust and relationships with their children so that the children can learn freely from the whole world. The parents need to learn first, and most, to get it all going, though.
Each and every time someone comes here and is resistant and argues and tries to defend an indefensible position, a dozen other people see that, and start to predict what the regular posters will write, and they start to really understand why we keep doing what we're doing.
Some of the resistant defenders see it too, but even if they don't, a few things happen:
1) they might think about what we've written and make changes later, without telling us
2) they might try the ideas out and find that it helps, and stick around for more ideas
Either of those is good for their children.
3) they might continue to think we're wrong, and keep limiting and shaming their kids.
That is not good for their children, but it doesn't harm this discussion.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi
Ouch. I really hope that my poorly expressed thoughts did not encourage this. Here is my reply to a private message (which I thought was by the author of this post, but wasn't...)
My son actually had a phase like this when he was 3. I will openly tell you that I do not have teenagers, and cannot speak to that specific developmental stage. My son wanted to be on the computer from the moment he woke up, and was extremely irritable any time he could not be on the computer (like if I needed to take my younger one out to bounce on the trampoline...). We moved, and the change of scenery and some other changes made this a non-issue.
After reading Hold On to Your Kids, I made some very slight changes in the way I relate to my boys, and my older son in particular has absolutely flourished since. He is happy and joyful, speaks politely to me most of the time (without being cued to do so), shares what he is doing with me, and relates to people with more confidence.
So, if I were in your place, I would go back to basics with attachments. I have come to understand that I can never take for granted my children's attention, affection, or attachment. It is not mine just because I am their mother. I aim to secure it over and over in every moment. Especially after breaks in attachment (after sleep, after the boys have been watching tv or on the computer, after separation, etc). My boys are young so it is not too difficult for me to "woo" them. I get their eyes, their smiles and nods. They hold my hand and I know that I have their hearts.
I would most definitely be very cautious not to CREATE COMPETITION between myself and the computer. Dr. Neufeld describes how attachments can be added to existing attachments (complementary), but it is the attachments that compete that are risky, as only one attachment (parent or parents) can be the primary, orienting attachment. So, I would not speak badly about the computer games, or attempt to turn it off or limit his time- this will just make it a you vs the computer scenario.
ALSO, what I believe our children most need to hear from us is that they are exactly the person we want and love just the way they are. If he senses that you dislike him and dislike the way he is now, then he may shut down emotionally. So, comments about how the computer is making him xyz will only hurt your attachment potential with him.
So, try getting in his space in a friendly way. Work to get eye contact, get his smile. The next piece is to give him something to hold on to. And orienting him is difficult when he knows far more than you about his games. He is in this world where he doesn't need your help- this is the hard part for attachment. You will really have to trial and error some here, and my son is young, so I still know more about computers than him (for the most part), so I am not yet in those waters. But I believe that if you get the other pieces in place, he will look to you for guidance in other areas where he's unsure. And he will likely want to share with you what he is doing on the computer if he feels you are interested in HIM, in his interests, his explorations. I'm not sure anything can shut down an attachment faster than simple disinterest. Maybe that was where he started pulling away from you, when he got into this amazing new world, and didn't feel like he could share it with you?? I have found that now that my son is attaching to me, he is constantly sharing with me what he is doing on the computer. And if I don't find the content interesting, I can always find something interesting in him- in how he is doing things, in the way he sees things, or what he remembers or what excites him. For example, he is playing puzzle games, and those I often join him in and have to be careful not to take over! But he also plays Pokemon computer games that I find utterly boring. But if he tells me that he got a new character or a new move, I can find sincere interest within myself for what he has accomplished or enjoyed. "you didn't think you could do it, but you did!" "you really like using rock types", etc, without HAVING to know all the details of the game. One super hero game that he has, my husband and I created accounts to do missions with him. I think that there are a lot of ways to demonstrate real, sincere interest without having to understand the details. Not sure if this is relevant or not, but it is in my heart to share it.
Serving him food is also a great avenue of attachment work. In getting him to look to you for his emotional needs, start by meeting his physical needs with abundance and joy. Get his brain recognizing that you are the one who "takes care of him".
I do believe that these attachment dynamics are mostly unconscious, so by being aware of them, you have a great strength.
Again, I wouldn't try to get BETWEEN your son and his computer. I would work slowly to get on his side, to get him attaching to you, so that he can follow his passions and interests freely and joyfully.
"How would I know if things became unhealthy?? What could I do??" And the attachment theory helped me think about these things in all new ways. Now I feel like I can tell if my son is in a healthy place with me by his relationship with me: if he is open to me, then I can trust he is ok. But if he became resistant to me (again), irritable most of the time, then I would know something was wrong.
So, my first message was meant to see if the author was interested in more information- but it ended up being damaging. All of the "advice" I would give is completely in sync with unschooling.
This is what I failed to express before.
Heidi
My son actually had a phase like this when he was 3. I will openly tell you that I do not have teenagers, and cannot speak to that specific developmental stage. My son wanted to be on the computer from the moment he woke up, and was extremely irritable any time he could not be on the computer (like if I needed to take my younger one out to bounce on the trampoline...). We moved, and the change of scenery and some other changes made this a non-issue.
After reading Hold On to Your Kids, I made some very slight changes in the way I relate to my boys, and my older son in particular has absolutely flourished since. He is happy and joyful, speaks politely to me most of the time (without being cued to do so), shares what he is doing with me, and relates to people with more confidence.
So, if I were in your place, I would go back to basics with attachments. I have come to understand that I can never take for granted my children's attention, affection, or attachment. It is not mine just because I am their mother. I aim to secure it over and over in every moment. Especially after breaks in attachment (after sleep, after the boys have been watching tv or on the computer, after separation, etc). My boys are young so it is not too difficult for me to "woo" them. I get their eyes, their smiles and nods. They hold my hand and I know that I have their hearts.
I would most definitely be very cautious not to CREATE COMPETITION between myself and the computer. Dr. Neufeld describes how attachments can be added to existing attachments (complementary), but it is the attachments that compete that are risky, as only one attachment (parent or parents) can be the primary, orienting attachment. So, I would not speak badly about the computer games, or attempt to turn it off or limit his time- this will just make it a you vs the computer scenario.
ALSO, what I believe our children most need to hear from us is that they are exactly the person we want and love just the way they are. If he senses that you dislike him and dislike the way he is now, then he may shut down emotionally. So, comments about how the computer is making him xyz will only hurt your attachment potential with him.
So, try getting in his space in a friendly way. Work to get eye contact, get his smile. The next piece is to give him something to hold on to. And orienting him is difficult when he knows far more than you about his games. He is in this world where he doesn't need your help- this is the hard part for attachment. You will really have to trial and error some here, and my son is young, so I still know more about computers than him (for the most part), so I am not yet in those waters. But I believe that if you get the other pieces in place, he will look to you for guidance in other areas where he's unsure. And he will likely want to share with you what he is doing on the computer if he feels you are interested in HIM, in his interests, his explorations. I'm not sure anything can shut down an attachment faster than simple disinterest. Maybe that was where he started pulling away from you, when he got into this amazing new world, and didn't feel like he could share it with you?? I have found that now that my son is attaching to me, he is constantly sharing with me what he is doing on the computer. And if I don't find the content interesting, I can always find something interesting in him- in how he is doing things, in the way he sees things, or what he remembers or what excites him. For example, he is playing puzzle games, and those I often join him in and have to be careful not to take over! But he also plays Pokemon computer games that I find utterly boring. But if he tells me that he got a new character or a new move, I can find sincere interest within myself for what he has accomplished or enjoyed. "you didn't think you could do it, but you did!" "you really like using rock types", etc, without HAVING to know all the details of the game. One super hero game that he has, my husband and I created accounts to do missions with him. I think that there are a lot of ways to demonstrate real, sincere interest without having to understand the details. Not sure if this is relevant or not, but it is in my heart to share it.
Serving him food is also a great avenue of attachment work. In getting him to look to you for his emotional needs, start by meeting his physical needs with abundance and joy. Get his brain recognizing that you are the one who "takes care of him".
I do believe that these attachment dynamics are mostly unconscious, so by being aware of them, you have a great strength.
Again, I wouldn't try to get BETWEEN your son and his computer. I would work slowly to get on his side, to get him attaching to you, so that he can follow his passions and interests freely and joyfully.
"How would I know if things became unhealthy?? What could I do??" And the attachment theory helped me think about these things in all new ways. Now I feel like I can tell if my son is in a healthy place with me by his relationship with me: if he is open to me, then I can trust he is ok. But if he became resistant to me (again), irritable most of the time, then I would know something was wrong.
So, my first message was meant to see if the author was interested in more information- but it ended up being damaging. All of the "advice" I would give is completely in sync with unschooling.
This is what I failed to express before.
Heidi
Sandra Dodd
TOO CLINICAL, too much manipulation:
-=- In getting him to look to you for his emotional needs, start by meeting his physical needs with abundance and joy. Get his brain recognizing that you are the one who "takes care of him".-=-
It sounds like training a dog.
This is NOT the kind of attachment parenting unschoolers need; I don't think this is attachment parenting, really, at all:
-=- I have come to understand that I can never take for granted my children's attention, affection, or attachment. It is not mine just because I am their mother. I aim to secure it over and over in every moment. Especially after breaks in attachment (after sleep, after the boys have been watching tv or on the computer, after separation, etc). -=-
Attachment isn't lost because a child has taken a nap.
-= My boys are young so it is not too difficult for me to "woo" them. I get their eyes, their smiles and nods. They hold my hand and I know that I have their hearts.-=-
There's a song in "That Think You Do" with a phase just nearly like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fd0f71pTv8&feature=fvwrel
It's a 60's style song written in the late 1990's.
It's a good movie. That would be better to share with a child than to "woo" them.
Attachment based on the desire to create attachment is flimsy.
When parents empower children with the intent to assist them to grow up whole and happy, affection and trust can start to build, and there will be attachment, but it will be based on a big, whole life, and not a desire to train them to "be attached."
-=-So, my first message was meant to see if the author was interested in more information- but it ended up being damaging. All of the "advice" I would give is completely in sync with unschooling.-=-
-=-This is what I failed to express before.-=-
Heidi, it is not completely in sync with unschooling.
What you succeeded in expressing before cannot be taken back. Leave it.
What others have succeeded in expressing, you've ignored.
Don't give advice until you really do see the difference in what we know from many years of experience and discussion, and what you have read in one book.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=- In getting him to look to you for his emotional needs, start by meeting his physical needs with abundance and joy. Get his brain recognizing that you are the one who "takes care of him".-=-
It sounds like training a dog.
This is NOT the kind of attachment parenting unschoolers need; I don't think this is attachment parenting, really, at all:
-=- I have come to understand that I can never take for granted my children's attention, affection, or attachment. It is not mine just because I am their mother. I aim to secure it over and over in every moment. Especially after breaks in attachment (after sleep, after the boys have been watching tv or on the computer, after separation, etc). -=-
Attachment isn't lost because a child has taken a nap.
-= My boys are young so it is not too difficult for me to "woo" them. I get their eyes, their smiles and nods. They hold my hand and I know that I have their hearts.-=-
There's a song in "That Think You Do" with a phase just nearly like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fd0f71pTv8&feature=fvwrel
It's a 60's style song written in the late 1990's.
It's a good movie. That would be better to share with a child than to "woo" them.
Attachment based on the desire to create attachment is flimsy.
When parents empower children with the intent to assist them to grow up whole and happy, affection and trust can start to build, and there will be attachment, but it will be based on a big, whole life, and not a desire to train them to "be attached."
-=-So, my first message was meant to see if the author was interested in more information- but it ended up being damaging. All of the "advice" I would give is completely in sync with unschooling.-=-
-=-This is what I failed to express before.-=-
Heidi, it is not completely in sync with unschooling.
What you succeeded in expressing before cannot be taken back. Leave it.
What others have succeeded in expressing, you've ignored.
Don't give advice until you really do see the difference in what we know from many years of experience and discussion, and what you have read in one book.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fiesta110
Hi everyone,
I can see that some of you are very upset by my last post, that was not
my intention. We are not against video games. Our son continues to
play computer and video games which he enjoys so much. We believe video
game play, if over done, can do more harm than good. As in music, you
need silence to hear the notes! For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week. We have
had the most peaceful and good feelings in our house the past two days
than we've had in a long time. He is happier too! For the record, we
do play games with him, bring him snacks and meals, ask questions,
create other games with him, play board games with him, etc. We have no
intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or
computer games. As I have stated in an another post, we see all the
wonderful learning happening while our son plays games. To be made aware
of the problems some people have had with video games as in the movie
and other website is valuable. The man who made the movie followed his
passion and made a movie about what he believed in. You may not agree
with the message but it was his experience. Our family likes to do
research and we found these sites interesting. Every family is
different and that is the beauty of the world.
Since my origianl post, which helped me get things out of my head and
opened the discussion up in our family, things are so much better here.
We have been kayaking, gone to the zoo, gone swimming and fishing in the
river, gone bike riding, played board games, read good books!
I opened up and shared our present struggles and I feel the wrong
picture of our family has been painted in people's minds. No one knows
us from a few words that I put down. We have electic-homeschooled from
the beginning. We are very close to our children. We have always
followed their passions and responded to all their needs. We don't use
the words "attachment parenting", we have lived it naturally. Our home
is open and free, the neighborhood kids magnet. I have visited with
Sandra in her home in an informal gathering of new unschoolers earlier
this year, have read her book, and other unschooling books. I have been
inspired! No family is going to unschool in the same way. I am
interested in everyone's comments. I hope that we can accept each
other's differences without making judgements that may be inaccurate.
My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it!
All the best and thanks again for your responses. They have been
thought provoking.
Cordelia
I can see that some of you are very upset by my last post, that was not
my intention. We are not against video games. Our son continues to
play computer and video games which he enjoys so much. We believe video
game play, if over done, can do more harm than good. As in music, you
need silence to hear the notes! For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week. We have
had the most peaceful and good feelings in our house the past two days
than we've had in a long time. He is happier too! For the record, we
do play games with him, bring him snacks and meals, ask questions,
create other games with him, play board games with him, etc. We have no
intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or
computer games. As I have stated in an another post, we see all the
wonderful learning happening while our son plays games. To be made aware
of the problems some people have had with video games as in the movie
and other website is valuable. The man who made the movie followed his
passion and made a movie about what he believed in. You may not agree
with the message but it was his experience. Our family likes to do
research and we found these sites interesting. Every family is
different and that is the beauty of the world.
Since my origianl post, which helped me get things out of my head and
opened the discussion up in our family, things are so much better here.
We have been kayaking, gone to the zoo, gone swimming and fishing in the
river, gone bike riding, played board games, read good books!
I opened up and shared our present struggles and I feel the wrong
picture of our family has been painted in people's minds. No one knows
us from a few words that I put down. We have electic-homeschooled from
the beginning. We are very close to our children. We have always
followed their passions and responded to all their needs. We don't use
the words "attachment parenting", we have lived it naturally. Our home
is open and free, the neighborhood kids magnet. I have visited with
Sandra in her home in an informal gathering of new unschoolers earlier
this year, have read her book, and other unschooling books. I have been
inspired! No family is going to unschool in the same way. I am
interested in everyone's comments. I hope that we can accept each
other's differences without making judgements that may be inaccurate.
My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it!
All the best and thanks again for your responses. They have been
thought provoking.
Cordelia
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed][Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sandra Dodd
-=-We are not against video games.-=-
This statement is contradicted by
-=- We believe video game play, if over done, can do more harm than good.=-
Would you say it about books? Music? Playing in the yard?
People weren't upset. People were pointing to statements and beliefs that are bad ideas and bad advice for unschoolers.
They were doing that because it's the purpose of this list to discuss whatever ideas are brought here, in an unschooling light, by unschooling people, for unschooling purposes. ;-)
-=-As in music, you
need silence to hear the notes! For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week.-=-
This is justifying controls.
You can control your son or you can help yourselves to seeing more value in video games, and move toward giving him REAL choices in his life.
If you choose the former--control--you will not succeed at unschooling in the way it is discussed in this forum. You will have a son who thinks about video games when he's not playing them, and probably one who will eventually sneak and then lie about that, to get to play games more. And he will feel bad about himself if he does that. And he won't feel very good about you.
-=-We have no intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or computer games.-=-
You think it can do more harm than good. You showed them a video of a man appealing to all humans to stop playing video games.
You have already put guilt on your children.
There's no reason for you to defend yourself in this forum. If you post things that are illogical, that will probably be pointed out.
It would be better for you to read, try, wait and watch.
-=-Since my original post, which helped me get things out of my head and
opened the discussion up in our family, things are so much better here.
We have been kayaking, gone to the zoo, gone swimming and fishing in the
river, gone bike riding, played board games, read good books!-=-
If you can keep that up until your son is grown, you might become good unschoolers.:-)
If you did all those things to get him away from video games, that could be a problem.
If he was only wanting to play video games before because he had not been given options like kayaking, the zoo, swimming, fishing, bike riding, board games and books, then it's understandable that he wanted something interactive and engaging that he could do on his own.
-=-I opened up and shared our present struggles and I feel the wrong
picture of our family has been painted in people's minds.-=-
People do this frequently on this list. If you continue to read here, you will see four or five do this within a year or less. Someone will write something extremely revealing about her beliefs and her hostility toward her child or something her child loves, and then she will come back and claim that we misunderstood her, while backpedalling and attempting to soften what she so clearly wrote and posted.
-=-No one knows us from a few words that I put down. -=-
We only knew the words you put down, and they were clearly negative toward gaming.
-=- We have electic-homeschooled from the beginning.-=-
I have never, ever heard of "electric homeschooling" (if that's what you meant to write).
But this discussion is about radical unschooling.
-=-I have visited with
Sandra in her home in an informal gathering of new unschoolers earlier
this year, have read her book, and other unschooling books. I have been
inspired! No family is going to unschool in the same way. I am
interested in everyone's comments. I hope that we can accept each
other's differences without making judgements that may be inaccurate.-=-
If only my house were magic. :-)
Not every family is going to unschool in the same way, but for the purpose of this discussion group, there are ideas that are beyond and outside of the sort of radical unschooling the moderators (who help me hugely, generously, and freely) and I are willing to support.
I accept that people have differences, but within a serious, in-depth discussion of unschooling, not all ideas are equally acceptable.
-=-My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it!-=-
I'm not interested.
If your husband thinks there are parenting philosophies or booga-booga scare stories about the media that people on this list haven't already heard or can't find by hanging around our friends, neighbors, the internet, parenting and homeschooling sections of the bookstore or homeschooling conferences and conventions, he must think we have come to unschooling without much clear thought at all.
Radical unschooling isn't something someone can stumble into and accidentally do.
I invited you to my house in January (along with a few others who were in New Mexico for various brief reasons, and one family who had missed the December symposium, and two local families who had been there) because you had written this:
-=-I am pretty new to the group. I have two sons, 12 and 9. I will be in Santa Fe, New Mexico moving contents out of the rental house my parents are selling. We will be driving from Eureka, Missouri. I am interested in finding out if Sandra will be speaking in the area anytime between Jan. 18 and Feb. 1. I am so inspired by Always Learning. We have had an eclectic approach to homeschooling and the older they get the more things are breaking down. The word "learning" now has a negative connotation and I am so sad about this. I need help in this process of transition. So, I thought hearing Sandra speak in person and perhaps to have the opportunity to meet with her while I was in New Mexico, would be wonderful.-=- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/65024
I hoped having you over would give you an opportunity to gain confidence in something that does not cause things to break down between parents and children--a way of living in which the word learning never could have a negative connotation--so you would no longer be sad.
People in this discussion are willing to help in your process of transition.
http://sandradodd.com/deschooling
As long as you think you know all you need to know, you can't learn from us, though.
This discussion doesn't exist to support you in staying where you are.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This statement is contradicted by
-=- We believe video game play, if over done, can do more harm than good.=-
Would you say it about books? Music? Playing in the yard?
People weren't upset. People were pointing to statements and beliefs that are bad ideas and bad advice for unschoolers.
They were doing that because it's the purpose of this list to discuss whatever ideas are brought here, in an unschooling light, by unschooling people, for unschooling purposes. ;-)
-=-As in music, you
need silence to hear the notes! For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week.-=-
This is justifying controls.
You can control your son or you can help yourselves to seeing more value in video games, and move toward giving him REAL choices in his life.
If you choose the former--control--you will not succeed at unschooling in the way it is discussed in this forum. You will have a son who thinks about video games when he's not playing them, and probably one who will eventually sneak and then lie about that, to get to play games more. And he will feel bad about himself if he does that. And he won't feel very good about you.
-=-We have no intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or computer games.-=-
You think it can do more harm than good. You showed them a video of a man appealing to all humans to stop playing video games.
You have already put guilt on your children.
There's no reason for you to defend yourself in this forum. If you post things that are illogical, that will probably be pointed out.
It would be better for you to read, try, wait and watch.
-=-Since my original post, which helped me get things out of my head and
opened the discussion up in our family, things are so much better here.
We have been kayaking, gone to the zoo, gone swimming and fishing in the
river, gone bike riding, played board games, read good books!-=-
If you can keep that up until your son is grown, you might become good unschoolers.:-)
If you did all those things to get him away from video games, that could be a problem.
If he was only wanting to play video games before because he had not been given options like kayaking, the zoo, swimming, fishing, bike riding, board games and books, then it's understandable that he wanted something interactive and engaging that he could do on his own.
-=-I opened up and shared our present struggles and I feel the wrong
picture of our family has been painted in people's minds.-=-
People do this frequently on this list. If you continue to read here, you will see four or five do this within a year or less. Someone will write something extremely revealing about her beliefs and her hostility toward her child or something her child loves, and then she will come back and claim that we misunderstood her, while backpedalling and attempting to soften what she so clearly wrote and posted.
-=-No one knows us from a few words that I put down. -=-
We only knew the words you put down, and they were clearly negative toward gaming.
-=- We have electic-homeschooled from the beginning.-=-
I have never, ever heard of "electric homeschooling" (if that's what you meant to write).
But this discussion is about radical unschooling.
-=-I have visited with
Sandra in her home in an informal gathering of new unschoolers earlier
this year, have read her book, and other unschooling books. I have been
inspired! No family is going to unschool in the same way. I am
interested in everyone's comments. I hope that we can accept each
other's differences without making judgements that may be inaccurate.-=-
If only my house were magic. :-)
Not every family is going to unschool in the same way, but for the purpose of this discussion group, there are ideas that are beyond and outside of the sort of radical unschooling the moderators (who help me hugely, generously, and freely) and I are willing to support.
I accept that people have differences, but within a serious, in-depth discussion of unschooling, not all ideas are equally acceptable.
-=-My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it!-=-
I'm not interested.
If your husband thinks there are parenting philosophies or booga-booga scare stories about the media that people on this list haven't already heard or can't find by hanging around our friends, neighbors, the internet, parenting and homeschooling sections of the bookstore or homeschooling conferences and conventions, he must think we have come to unschooling without much clear thought at all.
Radical unschooling isn't something someone can stumble into and accidentally do.
I invited you to my house in January (along with a few others who were in New Mexico for various brief reasons, and one family who had missed the December symposium, and two local families who had been there) because you had written this:
-=-I am pretty new to the group. I have two sons, 12 and 9. I will be in Santa Fe, New Mexico moving contents out of the rental house my parents are selling. We will be driving from Eureka, Missouri. I am interested in finding out if Sandra will be speaking in the area anytime between Jan. 18 and Feb. 1. I am so inspired by Always Learning. We have had an eclectic approach to homeschooling and the older they get the more things are breaking down. The word "learning" now has a negative connotation and I am so sad about this. I need help in this process of transition. So, I thought hearing Sandra speak in person and perhaps to have the opportunity to meet with her while I was in New Mexico, would be wonderful.-=- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/65024
I hoped having you over would give you an opportunity to gain confidence in something that does not cause things to break down between parents and children--a way of living in which the word learning never could have a negative connotation--so you would no longer be sad.
People in this discussion are willing to help in your process of transition.
http://sandradodd.com/deschooling
As long as you think you know all you need to know, you can't learn from us, though.
This discussion doesn't exist to support you in staying where you are.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
*** this is an interesting idea, so I will expand a little on the theory I am using to look at this issue (Hold On to Your Kids, Neufeld). The thought being proposed is that children need to be attached to their parents until they are able to fully "hold on to themselves", until they are fully independent and able to mix with others without compromising themselves. ***
The problem with this, is that unschooled kids don't generally have these issues. Schools are very good at detaching kids from their parents and their parent's ideas. When people have their kids in school, they must work very hard at maintaining attachments. Hold Onto Your Kids, is a great book for parents with kids in school, working against that school system to maintain the attachment of their kids while they are consistently being pulled away.
Unschooled kids don't have issues with compromising themselves. At least none of the unschoolers from really strong unschooling families, have this issue. It's one of those beautiful, not often spoken about, side effects of unschooling. Kids grow up knowing themselves deeply and know to their core what they are capable of and what they aren't and won't compromise themselves in any of that!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The problem with this, is that unschooled kids don't generally have these issues. Schools are very good at detaching kids from their parents and their parent's ideas. When people have their kids in school, they must work very hard at maintaining attachments. Hold Onto Your Kids, is a great book for parents with kids in school, working against that school system to maintain the attachment of their kids while they are consistently being pulled away.
Unschooled kids don't have issues with compromising themselves. At least none of the unschoolers from really strong unschooling families, have this issue. It's one of those beautiful, not often spoken about, side effects of unschooling. Kids grow up knowing themselves deeply and know to their core what they are capable of and what they aren't and won't compromise themselves in any of that!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
"fiesta110" <thoscor@...> wrote:
Considering the links you posted, it seems like you very much did lay a kind of guilt trip on your kid in order to convince him that he was wrong and you were right. Maybe it was kind, soft, "we care about you so much" guilt, but it's still a kind of emotional blackmail.
---Meredith
>We haveI'm glad there's more happiness in your home. From what you've described, though, I can't help thinking that it's because your kid is doing what you think he should be doing. Now you've relaxed, the pressure is off him, and everyone can breathe again. That's one of the reasons people on this list will try to "talk parents down" when they're worried out about something a kid is doing - that worry permeates the whole family and contributes in a substantial way to the dynamics, in a "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" kind of way.
> had the most peaceful and good feelings in our house the past two days
> than we've had in a long time. He is happier too!
>>We have noYou know what they say about good intentions?
> intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or
> computer games.
Considering the links you posted, it seems like you very much did lay a kind of guilt trip on your kid in order to convince him that he was wrong and you were right. Maybe it was kind, soft, "we care about you so much" guilt, but it's still a kind of emotional blackmail.
>>Our family likes...You made several comments about your family where you treated the group as a whole, rather than seeing individuals living together. And most of your concerns about your son seemed to deal with him falling away from the group. That's something to think about, if you expect your family to be a kind of unit. For some families, that's a kind of unstated agenda and set of expectations which will limit what kids are allowed to want and be - a set of limits on natural learning. Often you find those kinds of agendas in families where the parents think "natural learning" is about nature, rather than about the natural human drive to explore.
---Meredith
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:19 AM, fiesta110 wrote:
If you want an unschooling light shone on what you're doing, post. If you don't want to see whether it looks like the radical unschooling philosophy in practice, don't put it in a post.
(Though I think it's been suggested that you read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch. Maybe it's not clear that it means not to post for a while as you do that.)
Since you did post, I'm about to pull some of the ideas you've put on the list out for examination. You don't have to read if you don't want, but it's useful for others who are thinking your ideas sound good.
The idea of limiting a child to 10 hours a week of game play won't help learning flow. Nor would limiting reading to 10 hours. Or limiting skateboarding to 10 hours. Which doesn't mean the only other choice is to step back and wring your hands as he does nothing but play and gets irritable. It seems that's what you're assuming.
The number of hours isn't as important as why he's playing for long periods. 10 hours spent withdrawing from life, 10 hours spent with mom hovering in worry, 10 hours spent because the child didn't need more than 10 hours to explore what they wanted are all very different 10 hours.
Music is easier to hear without competing sounds. Occasional silences between notes can enhance the drama.
I'll play with the idea though. If x is necessary to hear notes, then someone who has the freedom will listen in many different ways and discover that x is a good thing to have. As they listen, they experience different amounts of x and discover how much x they like and in which situations. What they discover will be more profound than someone telling them, or, even worse, deciding how much x they need and when.
If someone imposes y amount of x, then the other person is memorizing like a rule how much x is the "right" amount rather than growing a feeling that's right for them.
Breathing too much can do more harm than good.
Over doing water can do more harm than good.
Exercise can break the body down more than it builds if the body is constantly pushed too far.
The right answer isn't as important as someone exploring and finding out for themselves is right and wrong for them.
At some point there will be games that need more than 10 hours a week. Then he'll be in a quandary, especially if he feels that there's some number of hours that's "too much" rather than figuring out strategies to be able to game AND do other things AND not be testy.
Many parents ground, punish, lecture, control, manipulate, reward and do all sorts of other things because they love their kids. Their kids don't feel loved. They feel untrusted and unliked. The parents don't intend that at all. If a parent can't see their actions though their kids' eyes, they can very easily be laying guilt on their kids when they have no such intent.
That's the huge flaw in most (so called) research to "prove" that sugar causes hyperactivity, that TV violence causes violent behavior, that playing video games leads to addiction. "Researchers" ignore what doesn't support their theory and only look at what does.
I can guarantee he didn't come from a home where he felt supported and loved for who he was, without pressure to make different choices. Video games soothed him. He escaped the pressure he felt by playing video games.
Kids don't need to escape into video games if they don't have anything to escape from. Unschooling parents create nurturing nests for their kids so they don't have lives they seek to escape.
I think where you've gotten confused is your goal is your definition of a happy family. This list is for people who want to figure out how to have (happy) unschooling families.
How would your kids describe your family? *That's* the mirror you want to be looking into.
The radical unschooling philosophy has a set of principles. Those principles are the same for every family. What those principles look like in practice will be different for every family because every child has different needs.
The "not unschooling in the same way" was never meant to mean whatever "works" for a family is unschooling.
If your goal is a happy (by your definition) family, your options will be different than if your goal is a (happy) radically unschooling family.
Does that make sense?
It doesn't sound like your husband or you want radical unschooling approaches to video gaming. You want what fits with the philosophy your developing, what you can make work. That's fine. But this list isn't "What Works For Us". It's a place where people can see what the radical unschooling approach looks like.
If people also want to try out other ideas, to cobble their own philosophy together, they can pick and choose ideas from other places to add to their mix.
But if those ideas are brought to this list "because they work for our family", they'll be subject to radical unschooling analysis.
If his goal is developing his own philosophy that works for him, then it won't be much good for the list.
Not all philosophies that work for a person or sound right to them are radical unschooling!
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I can see that some of you are very upset by my last postIt might look like upsetness if you assume we're discussing you. But we're discussing the ideas you're putting in your posts. The ideas aren't you. Other people have the same ideas. And it's helpful to them to see what they look like with an unschooling light on them.
If you want an unschooling light shone on what you're doing, post. If you don't want to see whether it looks like the radical unschooling philosophy in practice, don't put it in a post.
(Though I think it's been suggested that you read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch. Maybe it's not clear that it means not to post for a while as you do that.)
Since you did post, I'm about to pull some of the ideas you've put on the list out for examination. You don't have to read if you don't want, but it's useful for others who are thinking your ideas sound good.
The idea of limiting a child to 10 hours a week of game play won't help learning flow. Nor would limiting reading to 10 hours. Or limiting skateboarding to 10 hours. Which doesn't mean the only other choice is to step back and wring your hands as he does nothing but play and gets irritable. It seems that's what you're assuming.
The number of hours isn't as important as why he's playing for long periods. 10 hours spent withdrawing from life, 10 hours spent with mom hovering in worry, 10 hours spent because the child didn't need more than 10 hours to explore what they wanted are all very different 10 hours.
> As in music, youThere are no notes in silence. It's hard to think clearly when thoughts are translated into muddy words.
> need silence to hear the notes
Music is easier to hear without competing sounds. Occasional silences between notes can enhance the drama.
I'll play with the idea though. If x is necessary to hear notes, then someone who has the freedom will listen in many different ways and discover that x is a good thing to have. As they listen, they experience different amounts of x and discover how much x they like and in which situations. What they discover will be more profound than someone telling them, or, even worse, deciding how much x they need and when.
If someone imposes y amount of x, then the other person is memorizing like a rule how much x is the "right" amount rather than growing a feeling that's right for them.
> We believe videoWhy single out video games?
> game play, if over done, can do more harm than good.
Breathing too much can do more harm than good.
Over doing water can do more harm than good.
Exercise can break the body down more than it builds if the body is constantly pushed too far.
The right answer isn't as important as someone exploring and finding out for themselves is right and wrong for them.
> For our son at present, he has agreedIf he wanted to play AND not be testy, and didn't have someone supporting him in exploring ways to do that, then this will sound like a good idea. And will, as you found, work for now.
> to play no more than 10 hours of
> computer/video games per week.
At some point there will be games that need more than 10 hours a week. Then he'll be in a quandary, especially if he feels that there's some number of hours that's "too much" rather than figuring out strategies to be able to game AND do other things AND not be testy.
> We have noWhat is done to another doesn't always come from intent. It comes from how the other interprets and internalizes what's done to them.
> intention of laying any guilt on our children for playing video or
> computer games.
Many parents ground, punish, lecture, control, manipulate, reward and do all sorts of other things because they love their kids. Their kids don't feel loved. They feel untrusted and unliked. The parents don't intend that at all. If a parent can't see their actions though their kids' eyes, they can very easily be laying guilt on their kids when they have no such intent.
> The man who made the movie followed hisAn important part of research is looking at *all* the data, examining all the factors, not just the pieces that supports your theory.
> passion and made a movie about what he believed in. You may not agree
> with the message but it was his experience. Our family likes to do
> research and we found these sites interesting. Every family is
> different and that is the beauty of the world.
That's the huge flaw in most (so called) research to "prove" that sugar causes hyperactivity, that TV violence causes violent behavior, that playing video games leads to addiction. "Researchers" ignore what doesn't support their theory and only look at what does.
I can guarantee he didn't come from a home where he felt supported and loved for who he was, without pressure to make different choices. Video games soothed him. He escaped the pressure he felt by playing video games.
Kids don't need to escape into video games if they don't have anything to escape from. Unschooling parents create nurturing nests for their kids so they don't have lives they seek to escape.
> I opened up and shared our present struggles and I feel the wrongNo one here's judging your family. We're analyzing ideas, reflecting back whether those particular ideas will help someone move toward unschooling or away.
> picture of our family has been painted in people's minds.
I think where you've gotten confused is your goal is your definition of a happy family. This list is for people who want to figure out how to have (happy) unschooling families.
> We are very close to our children. We have alwaysWe aren't the ones you need to convince. It's your kids who are the ones who are judging how well you're parenting. Do they feel you're close? (These are all rhetorical questions.) Do they feel they can bring problems to you without fearing the fall out?
> followed their passions and responded to all their needs. We don't use
> the words "attachment parenting", we have lived it naturally. Our home
> is open and free, the neighborhood kids magnet.
How would your kids describe your family? *That's* the mirror you want to be looking into.
> No family is going to unschool in the same way.That line gets parroted back to mean something that has never been true.
The radical unschooling philosophy has a set of principles. Those principles are the same for every family. What those principles look like in practice will be different for every family because every child has different needs.
The "not unschooling in the same way" was never meant to mean whatever "works" for a family is unschooling.
> I hope that we can accept eachNo one's judging you. We are analyzing, dissecting, pulling apart ideas and judging whether they will steer someone towards more joyful learning and greater relationships or steer them away.
> other's differences without making judgements that may be inaccurate.
If your goal is a happy (by your definition) family, your options will be different than if your goal is a (happy) radically unschooling family.
Does that make sense?
It doesn't sound like your husband or you want radical unschooling approaches to video gaming. You want what fits with the philosophy your developing, what you can make work. That's fine. But this list isn't "What Works For Us". It's a place where people can see what the radical unschooling approach looks like.
If people also want to try out other ideas, to cobble their own philosophy together, they can pick and choose ideas from other places to add to their mix.
But if those ideas are brought to this list "because they work for our family", they'll be subject to radical unschooling analysis.
> My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about gameIf he wants to work his philosophy towards the radical unschooling philosophy, there may be ideas that could help lots of people if people here pull them apart and analyze them.
> playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
> appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
> if you would like to hear it!
If his goal is developing his own philosophy that works for him, then it won't be much good for the list.
Not all philosophies that work for a person or sound right to them are radical unschooling!
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***Some of the eminent health blogs have come up with various effects of gaming on our body. About 850 teens out of 1000 are addicted to virtual online and pc gaming. And most of them who were surveyed were facing social, school and psychological damage.
Depression and laziness are unhealthy signs that are frequently visible among these addicted gamers. However, a sensible mind would always know his limits and play games just for the entertainment and to cure boredom.***
***Young people who are isolated, anxious, depressed, or suffering from low self-esteem are particularly at risk of developing a video game addiction.***
Those 2 quotes came from both of those articles. SCHOOL! Those things are generally created by school and/or inattentive parents. Those things are NOT caused by video games. The video games aren't driving those kids to play more, those kids are playing more to escape the realities of their life.
Also this from one of the articles:
*** If you believe your child may be addicted to video games, Internet gaming, or computer games, there are programs that can help your son or daughter acknowledge the problem and find healthier ways to have fun. Wilderness therapy programs are an excellent option to remove the adolescent from their high-tech surroundings, reinvigorate their passion for other activities, and reintroduce them to healthy social interactions. Therapeutic boarding schools can also be life-changing for teens struggling with video game addiction, behavioral problems, or learning differences.***
Be wary of ANY article telling parents to send their kids to a therapy program or wilderness program. Those are some darn scary places. Do NOT take advice from an article that tells parents to send their kids to such places. Kids who end up there are there against their will. They are manipulated and told what they believe is wrong and bad. Kids come away all twisted up inside after being brainwashed to believe that everything about themselves is wrong, forced to change on the outside to match what they are being told is the right way to be. Many such places have rampant abuse in the form of punishment meted out by the people who run those places to get kids to step in line, which is hard to do with a kid who doesn't want to be there and whose every molecule is screaming to get away. Kids have died in those kinds of facilities. There was a really big one where we live that was closed because a kid died after being forced to hike when he
was sick.
***The second has excellent
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit.***
What exactly do you find excellent? I found the whole article to be appalling advice based on terrible science. For instance this:
***A recent brain-imaging study by researchers at Stanford's school of medicine suggests that while playing video games, men have more activity in the mesocorticolimbic center, the region of the brain associated with reward and addiction, than women.***
This is meant to say what exactly? That MRI's picked up brain imaging? Now there's some shocking science for you. If you scan a brain doing some activity, you pick up activity! People LIKE to be rewarded! I imagine a brain image of someone receiving a paycheck might react in the same way! That's not something terrible, it's something positive to acknowledge that people like being rewarded enough that they'll do what it takes to be rewarded.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Depression and laziness are unhealthy signs that are frequently visible among these addicted gamers. However, a sensible mind would always know his limits and play games just for the entertainment and to cure boredom.***
***Young people who are isolated, anxious, depressed, or suffering from low self-esteem are particularly at risk of developing a video game addiction.***
Those 2 quotes came from both of those articles. SCHOOL! Those things are generally created by school and/or inattentive parents. Those things are NOT caused by video games. The video games aren't driving those kids to play more, those kids are playing more to escape the realities of their life.
Also this from one of the articles:
*** If you believe your child may be addicted to video games, Internet gaming, or computer games, there are programs that can help your son or daughter acknowledge the problem and find healthier ways to have fun. Wilderness therapy programs are an excellent option to remove the adolescent from their high-tech surroundings, reinvigorate their passion for other activities, and reintroduce them to healthy social interactions. Therapeutic boarding schools can also be life-changing for teens struggling with video game addiction, behavioral problems, or learning differences.***
Be wary of ANY article telling parents to send their kids to a therapy program or wilderness program. Those are some darn scary places. Do NOT take advice from an article that tells parents to send their kids to such places. Kids who end up there are there against their will. They are manipulated and told what they believe is wrong and bad. Kids come away all twisted up inside after being brainwashed to believe that everything about themselves is wrong, forced to change on the outside to match what they are being told is the right way to be. Many such places have rampant abuse in the form of punishment meted out by the people who run those places to get kids to step in line, which is hard to do with a kid who doesn't want to be there and whose every molecule is screaming to get away. Kids have died in those kinds of facilities. There was a really big one where we live that was closed because a kid died after being forced to hike when he
was sick.
***The second has excellent
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit.***
What exactly do you find excellent? I found the whole article to be appalling advice based on terrible science. For instance this:
***A recent brain-imaging study by researchers at Stanford's school of medicine suggests that while playing video games, men have more activity in the mesocorticolimbic center, the region of the brain associated with reward and addiction, than women.***
This is meant to say what exactly? That MRI's picked up brain imaging? Now there's some shocking science for you. If you scan a brain doing some activity, you pick up activity! People LIKE to be rewarded! I imagine a brain image of someone receiving a paycheck might react in the same way! That's not something terrible, it's something positive to acknowledge that people like being rewarded enough that they'll do what it takes to be rewarded.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
*** We are not against video games. Our son continues to
play computer and video games which he enjoys so much. We believe video
game play, if over done, can do more harm than good. ***
You are holding onto this idea of moderation and amounts that are healthy and amounts that aren't.
***For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week. We have
had the most peaceful and good feelings in our house the past two days
than we've had in a long time. He is happier too!***
He's agreed to a rule to appease his parents. What a nice kid. Since he's done that, you are more relaxed and happier which allows him to feel that too. It's not the lesser amount of gaming causing the calm, it's you, the mom/parents BEING more relaxed that's causing the calm. Why not try being calm while he plays his games. Other people have suggested it but you are ignoring the suggestion because you are completely stuck on the idea that his gaming needs to be moderated to create peace and calm.
*** Our family likes to do
research and we found these sites interesting. Every family is
different and that is the beauty of the world.***
Okay, and yes, every family is different. I find it very telling what someone puts in a google search to do their research. Did you put in "gaming addiction"? Or did you put in "how to support son in gaming"? I assure you, you will come up with very different results. Which one is more positive? Which one supports your son? Which one supports your, you the mom's, belief system to get the results you want?
***We have electic-homeschooled from
the beginning. We are very close to our children. We have always
followed their passions and responded to all their needs.***
Electic-homeschooling isn't unschooling. I don't doubt that you are close to your children. That's a great starting point. However, you clearly haven't followed all of their passions, even if you have responded to all of their needs. Responding isn't at all the same as supporting or following a kid's passion. Some parents respond by spanking. You have responded by enforcing time limits on your child's passion. That isn't at all supportive. There IS a difference and that difference will make or break unschooling for you and your family. If unschooling isn't the goal, then never mind all of the advice on this list.
***My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it! ***
Is he open to critique? Will it help other parents support their kids in their gaming passion?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
play computer and video games which he enjoys so much. We believe video
game play, if over done, can do more harm than good. ***
You are holding onto this idea of moderation and amounts that are healthy and amounts that aren't.
***For our son at present, he has agreed
to play no more than 10 hours of computer/video games per week. We have
had the most peaceful and good feelings in our house the past two days
than we've had in a long time. He is happier too!***
He's agreed to a rule to appease his parents. What a nice kid. Since he's done that, you are more relaxed and happier which allows him to feel that too. It's not the lesser amount of gaming causing the calm, it's you, the mom/parents BEING more relaxed that's causing the calm. Why not try being calm while he plays his games. Other people have suggested it but you are ignoring the suggestion because you are completely stuck on the idea that his gaming needs to be moderated to create peace and calm.
*** Our family likes to do
research and we found these sites interesting. Every family is
different and that is the beauty of the world.***
Okay, and yes, every family is different. I find it very telling what someone puts in a google search to do their research. Did you put in "gaming addiction"? Or did you put in "how to support son in gaming"? I assure you, you will come up with very different results. Which one is more positive? Which one supports your son? Which one supports your, you the mom's, belief system to get the results you want?
***We have electic-homeschooled from
the beginning. We are very close to our children. We have always
followed their passions and responded to all their needs.***
Electic-homeschooling isn't unschooling. I don't doubt that you are close to your children. That's a great starting point. However, you clearly haven't followed all of their passions, even if you have responded to all of their needs. Responding isn't at all the same as supporting or following a kid's passion. Some parents respond by spanking. You have responded by enforcing time limits on your child's passion. That isn't at all supportive. There IS a difference and that difference will make or break unschooling for you and your family. If unschooling isn't the goal, then never mind all of the advice on this list.
***My husband had written quite a long philosophical message about game
playing, but decided not to post it unless the group thought it would be
appropriate for the intention of the Always Learning group. Let us know
if you would like to hear it! ***
Is he open to critique? Will it help other parents support their kids in their gaming passion?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***The second has excellent
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit. ***
The second is also funded by the CRC Healthgroup, which is local to me. This is what their about page says:
***Today, CRC Health Group has become the largest provider of specialized behavioral health care services in the U.S. Each day, we treat more than 30,000 people with drug and alcohol addiction, learning differences, weight management issues, eating disorders, and other behavioral issues. We operate residential treatment facilities, outpatient clinics, boarding schools, outdoor wilderness camps, and a variety of other therapeutic programs making us uniquely qualified to treat patients throughout the life cycle of their disorders, at every level of care. ***
So, basically they want your money. They have a huge interest in calling things addictions and finding problems with people. Definitely NOT a great resource for unschoolers!
Further evidence.... in their mission statement: "To inspire our employees to deliver clinical excellence and lead CRC to be the preferred treatment provider to individuals and families in need."
They want to corner the market it seems.
and:
* Mutual Respect - We foster a culture in which individual skills, experience and talent are valued and used to our customers’ advantage.
* Passion – We naturally demonstrate a passion in all that we do for our customers and employees.
The key word here is "customer". Don't trust all sources of information when you gather it up to use on your family.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
information about all things gaming and how to break the habit. ***
The second is also funded by the CRC Healthgroup, which is local to me. This is what their about page says:
***Today, CRC Health Group has become the largest provider of specialized behavioral health care services in the U.S. Each day, we treat more than 30,000 people with drug and alcohol addiction, learning differences, weight management issues, eating disorders, and other behavioral issues. We operate residential treatment facilities, outpatient clinics, boarding schools, outdoor wilderness camps, and a variety of other therapeutic programs making us uniquely qualified to treat patients throughout the life cycle of their disorders, at every level of care. ***
So, basically they want your money. They have a huge interest in calling things addictions and finding problems with people. Definitely NOT a great resource for unschoolers!
Further evidence.... in their mission statement: "To inspire our employees to deliver clinical excellence and lead CRC to be the preferred treatment provider to individuals and families in need."
They want to corner the market it seems.
and:
* Mutual Respect - We foster a culture in which individual skills, experience and talent are valued and used to our customers’ advantage.
* Passion – We naturally demonstrate a passion in all that we do for our customers and employees.
The key word here is "customer". Don't trust all sources of information when you gather it up to use on your family.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>Exactly. Gordon Neufeld was all the rage with homeschoolers in
> The problem with this, is that unschooled kids don't generally have
> these issues. Schools are very good at detaching kids from their
> parents and their parent's ideas. When people have their kids in
> school, they must work very hard at maintaining attachments. Hold
> Onto Your Kids, is a great book for parents with kids in school,
> working against that school system to maintain the attachment of
> their kids while they are consistently being pulled away.
Vancouver, Canada (where he lives and I'm from) because what he was
saying confirmed their belief that school did detach kids from their
parents. One more person in their keep-their-kids-out-of-the-hell-that-
is-school corner. His credibility took a dive every time someone
discovered *his* kids were in school and he wouldn't even consider
homeschooling/unschooling them. Somewhat like Alfie Kohn :-).
The subtitle of that book is "Why Parents Need to Matter More than
Peers". It really is a moot point (in the 2nd sense of the phrase) for
unschoolers.
I knew a family who was hooked on Neufeld, even seeing him as their
personal counselor. I think they were detached from their kids because
they had other interests that their kids interfered with, so maybe his
help was good for a time. But the kids ended up in school while the
parents pursued their passions. The oldest is especially immersed in a
peer group. They are disconnected now in more ways than one.
> Unschooled kids don't have issues with compromising themselves. AtI know lots of the kids Jenny's talking about. What an amazing bunch
> least none of the unschoolers from really strong unschooling
> families, have this issue. It's one of those beautiful, not often
> spoken about, side effects of unschooling. Kids grow up knowing
> themselves deeply and know to their core what they are capable of
> and what they aren't and won't compromise themselves in any of that!
of people! They have different strengths, passions and needs, but they
all have the support of and connection to their parents.
Robin B.
Robin Bentley
> I know lots of the kids Jenny's talking about. What an amazing bunchOh, and I meant to say that connection (and attachment) came from
> of people! They have different strengths, passions and needs, but they
> all have the support of and connection to their parents.
>
unschooling those kids in ways discussed on this list. Not from
Neufeld's or Kohn's books.
Robin B.
Schuyler
Coincidentally on Facebook this morning someone posted a link to Penn Jillette's comments about a recent episode of Bulls*** on video games. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/11/20/penn-jillette-is-tired-of-the-video-game-bulls.aspx%c2%a0is the article. In it he says this:
"You know, when I was 15, 16, 17-years-old, I spent five hours a day juggling, and I probably spent six hours a day seriously listening to music. And if I were 16 now, I would put that time into playing video games. The thing that old people don't understand is – you know if you've never heard Bob Dylan, and someone listened to him for 15 minutes, you're not going to get it. You are just not going to understand. You have to put in hours and hours to start to understand the form, and the same thing is true for gaming. You're not going to just look at a first-person shooter where you are killing zombies and understand the nuances. There is this tremendous amount of arrogance and hubris, where somebody can look at something for five minutes and dismiss it. Whether you talk about gaming or 20th century classical music, you can't do it in five minutes. You can't listen to The Rite of Spring once and understand what Stravinsky was all about. It seems like
you should at least have the grace to say you don't know, instead of saying that what other people are doing is wrong. The cliché of the nerdy kid who doesn't go outside and just plays games is completely untrue. And it's also true for the nerdy kid who studies comic books and turns into this genius, and it is also true for the nerdy kid who listens to every nerdy thing that Led Zeppelin put out. That kind of obsession in a 16-year-old is not ugly. It's beautiful. That kind of obsession is going to lead to a sophisticated 30-year-old who has a background in that artform. It just seems so simple, and yet I'm constantly in these big arguments with people on the computer who are talking about, “I would never let my kid do this and this in a video game.” And these are adults who when they were children were dropping acid and going to see the Grateful Dead. I mean, the Grateful Dead is provably s***ty music. It's impossible – it's theoretically
impossible to make a video game as bad as the Grateful Dead. I throw that out there as a challenge."
It's easy to find negative things out there about video games. Not because they are true, but because people are really afraid of the things that take their children's interest into new and unknown territories and find correlations between their passion and their undoing. Penn responded to the question:
" Looking back at some of the anti-game studies you guys used for the show, what do you think were some of the fundamental flaws in their methodologies?"
with this:
"They were completely flawed. First of all, we can't get hard science on this thing. That's the thing that I found so fascinating was when we talk to the FBI, and the FBI said you can't really get data on this because everybody of every age plays video games, so it’s kind of like trying to correlate who brushes their teeth. I found it fascinating because I knew that everybody played video games, but I did [not--I'm assuming] know it was everybody in the way that the FBI sees everybody."
So it's easy, if everybody is gaming, to find folks who feel that gaming has done them wrong. I watched the video and the guy seemed to be using gaming and his self-diagnosed addiction to gaming as an excuse for all his life failings. It can be nice to free yourself from responsibility by laying the blame at something else's door. It let him assign responsibility for his divorce, his economic difficulties and any other life problem on his gaming. How freeing is that? Doesn't change his situation. Doesn't change the common denominator in his situation. I mean if everybody is gaming, and gaming is addictive, and addictions are a problem, than why isn't everybody as miserable as this poor fellow? Or the 15 year old boy, or whomever else who had whatever trouble with life that could be correlated to gaming? It's good to factor in the idea of addictive personalities to whirl it up to a level that makes it not universal. It's good to take something that you
are arguing is a great risk, a great harm and sprinkle in a level of chance so that when it doesn't happen for the majority you can argue that the risk is still great.
Although, it is probably better to read Rat Park, to look at Bruce Alexander's work on addiction that Joyce mentioned in a previous post (http://sandradodd.com/protect), to look at what makes addiction more or less likely, how misery and boredom can play a role, how environment is a much more powerful predictor of addiction than some nebulous idea of addictive personalities. Than you will have put yourself in a position to parent your son without having worry and fear be your guiding principles. Look at what he is engaging with instead of looking for evidence that it is bad and dangerous and risky, look at how amazing video games are, how varied, how much a creative art form.
10 hours a week is so arbitrary. What if he didn't want to play 10 hours one week? Is there a rollover plan? Can he accumulate hours like money? Can he save up for a game that he knows he will want to play for hours and hours straight, like a novel that you just can't put down, or the olympics or a movie marathon? Or is he condemned to a life of an arbitrary relationship with those things he enjoys because his parents are afraid that his joy will lead to his downfall?
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"You know, when I was 15, 16, 17-years-old, I spent five hours a day juggling, and I probably spent six hours a day seriously listening to music. And if I were 16 now, I would put that time into playing video games. The thing that old people don't understand is – you know if you've never heard Bob Dylan, and someone listened to him for 15 minutes, you're not going to get it. You are just not going to understand. You have to put in hours and hours to start to understand the form, and the same thing is true for gaming. You're not going to just look at a first-person shooter where you are killing zombies and understand the nuances. There is this tremendous amount of arrogance and hubris, where somebody can look at something for five minutes and dismiss it. Whether you talk about gaming or 20th century classical music, you can't do it in five minutes. You can't listen to The Rite of Spring once and understand what Stravinsky was all about. It seems like
you should at least have the grace to say you don't know, instead of saying that what other people are doing is wrong. The cliché of the nerdy kid who doesn't go outside and just plays games is completely untrue. And it's also true for the nerdy kid who studies comic books and turns into this genius, and it is also true for the nerdy kid who listens to every nerdy thing that Led Zeppelin put out. That kind of obsession in a 16-year-old is not ugly. It's beautiful. That kind of obsession is going to lead to a sophisticated 30-year-old who has a background in that artform. It just seems so simple, and yet I'm constantly in these big arguments with people on the computer who are talking about, “I would never let my kid do this and this in a video game.” And these are adults who when they were children were dropping acid and going to see the Grateful Dead. I mean, the Grateful Dead is provably s***ty music. It's impossible – it's theoretically
impossible to make a video game as bad as the Grateful Dead. I throw that out there as a challenge."
It's easy to find negative things out there about video games. Not because they are true, but because people are really afraid of the things that take their children's interest into new and unknown territories and find correlations between their passion and their undoing. Penn responded to the question:
" Looking back at some of the anti-game studies you guys used for the show, what do you think were some of the fundamental flaws in their methodologies?"
with this:
"They were completely flawed. First of all, we can't get hard science on this thing. That's the thing that I found so fascinating was when we talk to the FBI, and the FBI said you can't really get data on this because everybody of every age plays video games, so it’s kind of like trying to correlate who brushes their teeth. I found it fascinating because I knew that everybody played video games, but I did [not--I'm assuming] know it was everybody in the way that the FBI sees everybody."
So it's easy, if everybody is gaming, to find folks who feel that gaming has done them wrong. I watched the video and the guy seemed to be using gaming and his self-diagnosed addiction to gaming as an excuse for all his life failings. It can be nice to free yourself from responsibility by laying the blame at something else's door. It let him assign responsibility for his divorce, his economic difficulties and any other life problem on his gaming. How freeing is that? Doesn't change his situation. Doesn't change the common denominator in his situation. I mean if everybody is gaming, and gaming is addictive, and addictions are a problem, than why isn't everybody as miserable as this poor fellow? Or the 15 year old boy, or whomever else who had whatever trouble with life that could be correlated to gaming? It's good to factor in the idea of addictive personalities to whirl it up to a level that makes it not universal. It's good to take something that you
are arguing is a great risk, a great harm and sprinkle in a level of chance so that when it doesn't happen for the majority you can argue that the risk is still great.
Although, it is probably better to read Rat Park, to look at Bruce Alexander's work on addiction that Joyce mentioned in a previous post (http://sandradodd.com/protect), to look at what makes addiction more or less likely, how misery and boredom can play a role, how environment is a much more powerful predictor of addiction than some nebulous idea of addictive personalities. Than you will have put yourself in a position to parent your son without having worry and fear be your guiding principles. Look at what he is engaging with instead of looking for evidence that it is bad and dangerous and risky, look at how amazing video games are, how varied, how much a creative art form.
10 hours a week is so arbitrary. What if he didn't want to play 10 hours one week? Is there a rollover plan? Can he accumulate hours like money? Can he save up for a game that he knows he will want to play for hours and hours straight, like a novel that you just can't put down, or the olympics or a movie marathon? Or is he condemned to a life of an arbitrary relationship with those things he enjoys because his parents are afraid that his joy will lead to his downfall?
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Can he save up for a game that he knows he will want to play for hours and hours straight, like a novel that you just can't put down, or the olympics or a movie marathon? -=-
If he wanted a novel, or a series of novels, or to watch the Olympics or DVDs, would the parents make him save up money for them?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If he wanted a novel, or a series of novels, or to watch the Olympics or DVDs, would the parents make him save up money for them?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]