About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv question
Jennifer Kubenka
Hi, I don't post a whole lot, but I had to respond to this.
Please keep in mind that this is my experience only, others may have other
stories to tell.
All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
At least that's my take on what I've read lately and admittedly, it's a
simplistic view of a very complex issue.
Anyway, with my own almost-3yo daughter, when we started limiting her
tv-watching to one hour per day or less, within 1 week (really, I'm not
exagerating here), we had a calmer child, one who wasn't bouncing off the
walls all of the time. We also watched her imagination take flight, because
if the tv wasn't on, she had to entertain herself, and all of a sudden, her
animals had lives and personalities, and she started doing all of the things
the early childhood development books say is normal childhood activities for
almost-3yolds.
I will also say that part of this, I believe, is not because we turned off
the tv, but because of where she is developmentally, but I think turning off
the tv, and putting a limit on it for Ripley was one of the best things we
could have done as a family.
I will also say that before we did this, I made sure my art supplies and
everything else were all present and accounted for, so that when Ripley
asked for the tv, I could present her with other activities.
I like the tv. I like movies. I like being able to watch stuff both for
learning and for non. I do not like tv for noise, for companionship, for
filler. There's so much to do with other activities and other people!
Again, I say this is all my own personal experience and opinions, so please
keep that in your mind.
Jennifer, in Fort Worth, it looks like the rain's stopped again!
Please keep in mind that this is my experience only, others may have other
stories to tell.
All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
At least that's my take on what I've read lately and admittedly, it's a
simplistic view of a very complex issue.
Anyway, with my own almost-3yo daughter, when we started limiting her
tv-watching to one hour per day or less, within 1 week (really, I'm not
exagerating here), we had a calmer child, one who wasn't bouncing off the
walls all of the time. We also watched her imagination take flight, because
if the tv wasn't on, she had to entertain herself, and all of a sudden, her
animals had lives and personalities, and she started doing all of the things
the early childhood development books say is normal childhood activities for
almost-3yolds.
I will also say that part of this, I believe, is not because we turned off
the tv, but because of where she is developmentally, but I think turning off
the tv, and putting a limit on it for Ripley was one of the best things we
could have done as a family.
I will also say that before we did this, I made sure my art supplies and
everything else were all present and accounted for, so that when Ripley
asked for the tv, I could present her with other activities.
I like the tv. I like movies. I like being able to watch stuff both for
learning and for non. I do not like tv for noise, for companionship, for
filler. There's so much to do with other activities and other people!
Again, I say this is all my own personal experience and opinions, so please
keep that in your mind.
Jennifer, in Fort Worth, it looks like the rain's stopped again!
Collette Mattingly
I think there is something to the idea that
everyone reacts differently to TV. My stepson is a child that should not
watch TV. He cannot distinguish reality and he is consumed by the
programming. He also watches things (not in my house) that are
damaging/violent and acts out that type of behavior. Whereas my son
would rather the tv not be on and if he does choose to watch
something, he prefers an "educational" type program or something where the
conflict isn't so harsh. But these children also come from two very
different households. His "real" mother is prone to violent
outbursts. So I wonder if at a younger age a child will more
likely watch a show that in someway reflects their real life situation.
Anyone care to comment? - Collette
----- Original Message -----From: B. Van BruntSent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:56 PMSubject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv question
Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices)
----Original Message Follows----
From: louisaem@...
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv
question
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:43:41 EST
In a message dated 3/29/01 4:47:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, emher@...
writes:
<< All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
>>
I'm thinking the research has missed something and it may have to do with
many other factors, primarily genetics.
Neither one of my children have proven the research to be correct. Neither
are receptors or passive in-takers, both are highly imaginative, active and
analytical. I think that there are so many more factors of the environment
(not to mention genetics) to be considered.
Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I know that the "TV is bad and rots your brain" belief is popular and dearly
held by many, I just don't see it borne out in real life. Perhaps it could
prove true for some but I doubt we can ever know for sure, one can't go back
and raise a child again to see if things turn out differently. Research
into
genetic factors and their influence on a person's outcome are much more
persuading and I tend to think a passive learner will be just that
regardless
of TV.
Kris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
Addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Judie C. Rall
> Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raisedI have to say this describes me perfectly. When I was growing up,
> on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
my mom was divorced, working two jobs to support us, and I
watched as much tv as I wanted. I don't ever remember being told I
couldn't watch a particular program or that I had been sitting in front
of the tv too long. My favorite programs were The Waltons, Eight is
Enough, Marcus Welby M.D. (I'm showing my age now), Love
Boat, The Brady Bunch ( I know, I know), but I didn't have a father
or any brothers and sisters, didn't have a clue what a "normal"
family was supposed to be like, and was starving for love and
attention. TV filled the void for me, I got from it what I needed.
I also watched lots of gorry murder mysteries.
I think that's the key. If children are not emotionally needy, they
aren't going to cling to it. Perhaps when they are little, they might
watch lots of it because they are just fascinated, but as they get
older, they find that it doesn't fill them, because they are already
filled. And calm down, I'm not saying that if your kids cling to the
TV that you are a bad mom, and not meeting your kids emotional
needs. Sometimes they have needs that aren't readily apparent,
that we don't know about. Observing what they watch may show
you a pattern as to WHY they are watching, what they are trying to
get from it. It could be a useful diagnostic tool.
And even though I watched television constantly as a child (my
grandfather insisted the television HAD to be on all the time, if we
turned it off he threw a royal fit) I am very intelligent, went to
college, got two degrees, and even though I still love tv, it is turned
off a large percentage of the time in our home, and it has not
stunted my intellectual or emotional growth. I have a very inquiring
mind, read books constantly, and did not become a serial killer
because I watched violence on tv.
Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.
Judie
Samantha Stopple
> All the research I've read all points to the sameThe book I read Jane Healy's Endangered Minds that
> thing: tv-watching,
> especially in the younger children, DOES affect the
> way their brain
> develops. In short, it makes them receptors and
> passive in-takers of
> information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
mirrors what you said above...But even she says TV is
only PART of the problem. The other part is families
not being an active part of facilitating their
children's learning/being and active part of their
children's lives. The other part I don't think she
takes into account is compulsory learning IMO is
really no different in brain development process than
TV.
But and unschooled child chooses to watch, read, do
what ever they are doing. So they are in charge of the
learning what they are processing from the TV. And in
an unschooled familiy kids are doing more than just
watching TV even the ones who watch a lot. They help
mom and dad cook dinner, they do projects, they read,
play computer games, go outside and collect bugs
etc...they are a real part of the life of their
families household. At least that the experience in my
house.
Samantha
who does think most of whats on TV is crap, has a
defacto limit on TV in that we don't get cable because
of financial limits and don't care for most of the
programming. But if we could just get Discovery and
few favored programs we would love to ..but kids can
do a marathon magic school bus video day and PBS line
up day and the next day spend time outside..
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/29/01 4:47:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, emher@...
writes:
<< All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
many other factors, primarily genetics.
Neither one of my children have proven the research to be correct. Neither
are receptors or passive in-takers, both are highly imaginative, active and
analytical. I think that there are so many more factors of the environment
(not to mention genetics) to be considered.
Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I know that the "TV is bad and rots your brain" belief is popular and dearly
held by many, I just don't see it borne out in real life. Perhaps it could
prove true for some but I doubt we can ever know for sure, one can't go back
and raise a child again to see if things turn out differently. Research into
genetic factors and their influence on a person's outcome are much more
persuading and I tend to think a passive learner will be just that regardless
of TV.
Kris
writes:
<< All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
>>I'm thinking the research has missed something and it may have to do with
many other factors, primarily genetics.
Neither one of my children have proven the research to be correct. Neither
are receptors or passive in-takers, both are highly imaginative, active and
analytical. I think that there are so many more factors of the environment
(not to mention genetics) to be considered.
Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I know that the "TV is bad and rots your brain" belief is popular and dearly
held by many, I just don't see it borne out in real life. Perhaps it could
prove true for some but I doubt we can ever know for sure, one can't go back
and raise a child again to see if things turn out differently. Research into
genetic factors and their influence on a person's outcome are much more
persuading and I tend to think a passive learner will be just that regardless
of TV.
Kris
B. Van Brunt
Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices)
----Original Message Follows----
From: louisaem@...
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv
question
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:43:41 EST
In a message dated 3/29/01 4:47:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, emher@...
writes:
<< All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
many other factors, primarily genetics.
Neither one of my children have proven the research to be correct. Neither
are receptors or passive in-takers, both are highly imaginative, active and
analytical. I think that there are so many more factors of the environment
(not to mention genetics) to be considered.
Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I know that the "TV is bad and rots your brain" belief is popular and dearly
held by many, I just don't see it borne out in real life. Perhaps it could
prove true for some but I doubt we can ever know for sure, one can't go back
and raise a child again to see if things turn out differently. Research
into
genetic factors and their influence on a person's outcome are much more
persuading and I tend to think a passive learner will be just that
regardless
of TV.
Kris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices)
----Original Message Follows----
From: louisaem@...
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv
question
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:43:41 EST
In a message dated 3/29/01 4:47:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, emher@...
writes:
<< All the research I've read all points to the same thing: tv-watching,
especially in the younger children, DOES affect the way their brain
develops. In short, it makes them receptors and passive in-takers of
information, rather than active, analytical, etc.
>>I'm thinking the research has missed something and it may have to do with
many other factors, primarily genetics.
Neither one of my children have proven the research to be correct. Neither
are receptors or passive in-takers, both are highly imaginative, active and
analytical. I think that there are so many more factors of the environment
(not to mention genetics) to be considered.
Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I know that the "TV is bad and rots your brain" belief is popular and dearly
held by many, I just don't see it borne out in real life. Perhaps it could
prove true for some but I doubt we can ever know for sure, one can't go back
and raise a child again to see if things turn out differently. Research
into
genetic factors and their influence on a person's outcome are much more
persuading and I tend to think a passive learner will be just that
regardless
of TV.
Kris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/29/01 11:58:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bvanbrunt4@... writes:
<< Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices) >>
LOL, I enjoyed that little post script. I was wondering the same thing about
my own opinion. However, I couldn't help but notice a VERY strong similarity
between the warnings I got about not spanking (they'll be brats), home
schooling (they'll be socially retarded), vegetarianism (they'll be sickly),
striving towards non-coercion (they'll be out of control, I'll be a doormat)
and on and on.
None of the dire circumstances have been realized. Am I a lucky recipient
(victim) of chance?
Kris
**disclaimer** I guess one could say I limit the content of what my children
watch. With my toddler I am simply unwilling to buy or put on anything but
videos I deem appropriate. I don't say "No", I say "I won't put that in for
you." By the time he's old enough to pick his own videos he'll probably be
just like his sister and heed my warnings about their content. She knows I
won't lie and try not to coerce her so she listens to me and knows I'm
usually right about what she can handle. Of course all videos of violent
nature are mine and I don't have to share. *grin* I just love the juggling
of semantics thing.
bvanbrunt4@... writes:
<< Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices) >>
LOL, I enjoyed that little post script. I was wondering the same thing about
my own opinion. However, I couldn't help but notice a VERY strong similarity
between the warnings I got about not spanking (they'll be brats), home
schooling (they'll be socially retarded), vegetarianism (they'll be sickly),
striving towards non-coercion (they'll be out of control, I'll be a doormat)
and on and on.
None of the dire circumstances have been realized. Am I a lucky recipient
(victim) of chance?
Kris
**disclaimer** I guess one could say I limit the content of what my children
watch. With my toddler I am simply unwilling to buy or put on anything but
videos I deem appropriate. I don't say "No", I say "I won't put that in for
you." By the time he's old enough to pick his own videos he'll probably be
just like his sister and heed my warnings about their content. She knows I
won't lie and try not to coerce her so she listens to me and knows I'm
usually right about what she can handle. Of course all videos of violent
nature are mine and I don't have to share. *grin* I just love the juggling
of semantics thing.
B. Van Brunt
I suppose I should have put in a similar disclaimer -- my kids are toddlers,
so all they want to watch is Arthur and the Veggietales and such. Ask me
again in a few years when they're asking to watch something a little more
controversial and see if I've changed my tune.
B.
----Original Message Follows----
From: louisaem@...
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv
question
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:17:00 EST
In a message dated 3/29/01 11:58:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bvanbrunt4@... writes:
<< Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive
in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices) >>
LOL, I enjoyed that little post script. I was wondering the same thing
about
my own opinion. However, I couldn't help but notice a VERY strong
similarity
between the warnings I got about not spanking (they'll be brats), home
schooling (they'll be socially retarded), vegetarianism (they'll be sickly),
striving towards non-coercion (they'll be out of control, I'll be a doormat)
and on and on.
None of the dire circumstances have been realized. Am I a lucky recipient
(victim) of chance?
Kris
**disclaimer** I guess one could say I limit the content of what my
children
watch. With my toddler I am simply unwilling to buy or put on anything but
videos I deem appropriate. I don't say "No", I say "I won't put that in for
you." By the time he's old enough to pick his own videos he'll probably be
just like his sister and heed my warnings about their content. She knows I
won't lie and try not to coerce her so she listens to me and knows I'm
usually right about what she can handle. Of course all videos of violent
nature are mine and I don't have to share. *grin* I just love the juggling
of semantics thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
so all they want to watch is Arthur and the Veggietales and such. Ask me
again in a few years when they're asking to watch something a little more
controversial and see if I've changed my tune.
B.
----Original Message Follows----
From: louisaem@...
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv
question
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:17:00 EST
In a message dated 3/29/01 11:58:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bvanbrunt4@... writes:
<< Without having read the research, it is probably silly to comment, but
couldn't it be possible that children that are naturally "passive
in-takers"
are more likely to want to watch TV. It may be another question of which
came first, the passive child or the TV watching.
Just a thought,
B. (who let's her kids watch what they want, so may be just trying to
justify her choices) >>
LOL, I enjoyed that little post script. I was wondering the same thing
about
my own opinion. However, I couldn't help but notice a VERY strong
similarity
between the warnings I got about not spanking (they'll be brats), home
schooling (they'll be socially retarded), vegetarianism (they'll be sickly),
striving towards non-coercion (they'll be out of control, I'll be a doormat)
and on and on.
None of the dire circumstances have been realized. Am I a lucky recipient
(victim) of chance?
Kris
**disclaimer** I guess one could say I limit the content of what my
children
watch. With my toddler I am simply unwilling to buy or put on anything but
videos I deem appropriate. I don't say "No", I say "I won't put that in for
you." By the time he's old enough to pick his own videos he'll probably be
just like his sister and heed my warnings about their content. She knows I
won't lie and try not to coerce her so she listens to me and knows I'm
usually right about what she can handle. Of course all videos of violent
nature are mine and I don't have to share. *grin* I just love the juggling
of semantics thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
dawn
>a lot of what i've seen about tv changing brain receptors is only really
> I'm thinking the research has missed something and it may have to do with
> many other factors, primarily genetics.
>
from a couple of sources and not replicated that I am aware of.
interestingly, people used to say the same about reading.
dhs
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/29/01 5:47:19 PM, dawn@... writes:
<< a lot of what i've seen about tv changing brain receptors is only really
from a couple of sources and not replicated that I am aware of.
interestingly, people used to say the same about reading. >>
No kidding! When I was little, reading would ruin your eyes.
Whatever.
People like to say no. I think it's because their parents said no. And they
want REASONS to say no, and there are lots of traditional shared-around lies
which parents use to say "NO" with, and some of the current ones are those
psuedo scientific anti-TV books.
When I was a kid chocolate would give you exzema (sp?) and French fries would
make your face break out and caffein would stunt your growth.
I work consciously not to tell my kids such boogie-man stories.
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
<< a lot of what i've seen about tv changing brain receptors is only really
from a couple of sources and not replicated that I am aware of.
interestingly, people used to say the same about reading. >>
No kidding! When I was little, reading would ruin your eyes.
Whatever.
People like to say no. I think it's because their parents said no. And they
want REASONS to say no, and there are lots of traditional shared-around lies
which parents use to say "NO" with, and some of the current ones are those
psuedo scientific anti-TV books.
When I was a kid chocolate would give you exzema (sp?) and French fries would
make your face break out and caffein would stunt your growth.
I work consciously not to tell my kids such boogie-man stories.
Sandra
-------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/29/01 6:39:25 PM, collettemattingly@... writes:
<< His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. >>
More likely genetic propensity to a quick temper and frustration than copying
TV, in my experience.
Sandra
-------------------
<< His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. >>
More likely genetic propensity to a quick temper and frustration than copying
TV, in my experience.
Sandra
-------------------
Johanna
Wow, I almost felt like you were talking about me!
My mom was single etc. ... By the time I was 22 I didn't even own a tv. Got my
first one at 27 because someone owed me money and couldn't pay me so he gave me
his tv. Do you remember Kimba the White Lion?
Johanna
----- Original Message -----From: Judie C. RallSent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:16 AMSubject: Re: About tv limits WAS Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] another tv question
> Based on the fact that I know many highly intelligent people who were raised
> on television I don't buy the popular research, not completely.
I have to say this describes me perfectly. When I was growing up,
my mom was divorced, working two jobs to support us, and I
watched as much tv as I wanted. I don't ever remember being told I
couldn't watch a particular program or that I had been sitting in front
of the tv too long. My favorite programs were The Waltons, Eight is
Enough, Marcus Welby M.D. (I'm showing my age now), Love
Boat, The Brady Bunch ( I know, I know), but I didn't have a father
or any brothers and sisters, didn't have a clue what a "normal"
family was supposed to be like, and was starving for love and
attention. TV filled the void for me, I got from it what I needed.
I also watched lots of gorry murder mysteries.
I think that's the key. If children are not emotionally needy, they
aren't going to cling to it. Perhaps when they are little, they might
watch lots of it because they are just fascinated, but as they get
older, they find that it doesn't fill them, because they are already
filled. And calm down, I'm not saying that if your kids cling to the
TV that you are a bad mom, and not meeting your kids emotional
needs. Sometimes they have needs that aren't readily apparent,
that we don't know about. Observing what they watch may show
you a pattern as to WHY they are watching, what they are trying to
get from it. It could be a useful diagnostic tool.
And even though I watched television constantly as a child (my
grandfather insisted the television HAD to be on all the time, if we
turned it off he threw a royal fit) I am very intelligent, went to
college, got two degrees, and even though I still love tv, it is turned
off a large percentage of the time in our home, and it has not
stunted my intellectual or emotional growth. I have a very inquiring
mind, read books constantly, and did not become a serial killer
because I watched violence on tv.
Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.
Judie
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
Addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[email protected]
In a message dated 3/29/01 5:34:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
collettemattingly@... writes:
<< His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. So I wonder if at a
younger age a child will more likely watch a show that in someway reflects
their real life situation. Anyone care to comment? - Collette >>
I used to be a strong believer that nurture/environment was the key factor in
personality. What I've seen and read about genetics recently has challenged
that mindset and I've come to believe that genetics are probably an even
bigger factor.
Outside severe abuse and/or trauma I think our bents and preferences are
largely set by our genetics. Mind you, I think this is influenced by nurture
and coping skills can be learned.
Read some of the studies done on identical twins who were separated at birth,
it's purely fascinating.
Kris
collettemattingly@... writes:
<< His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. So I wonder if at a
younger age a child will more likely watch a show that in someway reflects
their real life situation. Anyone care to comment? - Collette >>
I used to be a strong believer that nurture/environment was the key factor in
personality. What I've seen and read about genetics recently has challenged
that mindset and I've come to believe that genetics are probably an even
bigger factor.
Outside severe abuse and/or trauma I think our bents and preferences are
largely set by our genetics. Mind you, I think this is influenced by nurture
and coping skills can be learned.
Read some of the studies done on identical twins who were separated at birth,
it's purely fascinating.
Kris
dawn
>thisis it exactly. i refuse to give a box with some electrical wiring in
> I work consciously not to tell my kids such boogie-man stories.
>
>
it such power over my kids, myself and my family. We do tv. We do more
or less depending on circumstances. WE have been tv free, too. But I
have learned that it is not only WRONG it is damaging to put my personal
hangups and preferences on the shoulders of my kids. Plus, I rather
appreciate that my kids *aren't* the ones glued to tv, insipid tv at that,
when we are out because they know they will get to see it at other times.
I'm happy that my kids have the chance to develop discerning tastes of
their own.
dhs
Collette Mattingly
Tracy,
I hate to label anyone, especially a child, ADHD or
any of those things. They end up living into that label. I think
some kids are just more rambunxious. Dh and I did try an herbal supplement
for "active" children to help his neurotransmitters connect so stepson could
think better and control himself. It really did seem to
help with his speach and behavior. He could get a sentence out
without starting over and was able to play with my sons toys without throwing
and breaking everything. DH didn't like it though. Even though it
had no relaxants he thought it made him too calm. My contention was that
he could now think "better" and that had to feel nicer for him. But DH
won.-Collette
----- Original Message -----From: Tracy OldfieldSent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:02 PMSubject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: About tv limits> I think there is something to the idea that everyone reacts
> differently to TV. My stepson is a child that should not watch TV.
> He cannot distinguish reality and he is consumed by the programming.
> He also watches things (not in my house) that are damaging/violent and
> acts out that type of behavior. Whereas my son would rather the tv
> not be on and if he does choose to watch something, he prefers an
> "educational" type program or something where the conflict isn't so
> harsh. But these children also come from two very different
> households. His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. So I
> wonder if at a younger age a child will more likely watch a show that
> in someway reflects their real life situation. Anyone care to
> comment? - Collette
Perhaps he's using the images he sees on the telly to try to make
some sense of his mother's actions? Is there a 'medical' cause for
the outbursts, (I say 'medical' cos I'm fairly suspicious of medical
diagnoses of behavioural stuff, but in this case a label might help
the boy) that might give you a kicking-off point for some discussion
about why she's like that? The least, I think, is to explore how he
feels about his mother's behaviour...
Just some thoughts
Tracy
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
Addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Bobbie
my kids love coffee by the way. I can't enjoy my OWN
latte in peace if they see it. I always had coffee
when I was younger and I went to a restaraunt with my
dad/mom. the waitress would kinda laugh when I ordered
it and look at my dad like ok, what will she really
have? and he would say "she wants coffee."
just thought I'd share.
-Bobbie
--- SandraDodd@... wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
latte in peace if they see it. I always had coffee
when I was younger and I went to a restaraunt with my
dad/mom. the waitress would kinda laugh when I ordered
it and look at my dad like ok, what will she really
have? and he would say "she wants coffee."
just thought I'd share.
-Bobbie
--- SandraDodd@... wrote:
> When I was a kid chocolate would give you exzema__________________________________________________
> (sp?) and French fries would
> make your face break out and caffein would stunt
> your growth.
>
> I work consciously not to tell my kids such
> boogie-man stories.
>
> Sandra
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Bobbie
...or studies done on babies in utero...where their
personality and mind is already developing...in very
close quarters with their moms, too. One of my
favorite books is "The Secret Life of the Unborn
Child"
it's great. I forget the author though.
-Bobbie
--- louisaem@... wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
personality and mind is already developing...in very
close quarters with their moms, too. One of my
favorite books is "The Secret Life of the Unborn
Child"
it's great. I forget the author though.
-Bobbie
--- louisaem@... wrote:
> Outside severe abuse and/or trauma I think our bents__________________________________________________
> and preferences are
> largely set by our genetics. Mind you, I think this
> is influenced by nurture
> and coping skills can be learned.
>
> Read some of the studies done on identical twins who
> were separated at birth,
> it's purely fascinating.
>
> Kris
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
dawn
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Bobbie wrote:
ideas on trial" with his father in teh mornings. i love to watch people
when we go to coffee shops andhe goes up and orders his special coffee,
then sits down with is nose in a book to drink it...looks like an exact
miniature of his father.
dhs
> my kids love coffee by the way. I can't enjoy my OWNmy 8 yo loves coffee. he gets up to drink coffee and play chess or "put
> latte in peace if they see it. I always had coffee
> when I was younger and I went to a restaraunt with my
> dad/mom. the waitress would kinda laugh when I ordered
> it and look at my dad like ok, what will she really
> have? and he would say "she wants coffee."
> just thought I'd share.
>
>
>
ideas on trial" with his father in teh mornings. i love to watch people
when we go to coffee shops andhe goes up and orders his special coffee,
then sits down with is nose in a book to drink it...looks like an exact
miniature of his father.
dhs
Tracy Oldfield
> I think there is something to the idea that everyone reactsPerhaps he's using the images he sees on the telly to try to make
> differently to TV. My stepson is a child that should not watch TV.
> He cannot distinguish reality and he is consumed by the programming.
> He also watches things (not in my house) that are damaging/violent and
> acts out that type of behavior. Whereas my son would rather the tv
> not be on and if he does choose to watch something, he prefers an
> "educational" type program or something where the conflict isn't so
> harsh. But these children also come from two very different
> households. His "real" mother is prone to violent outbursts. So I
> wonder if at a younger age a child will more likely watch a show that
> in someway reflects their real life situation. Anyone care to
> comment? - Collette
some sense of his mother's actions? Is there a 'medical' cause for
the outbursts, (I say 'medical' cos I'm fairly suspicious of medical
diagnoses of behavioural stuff, but in this case a label might help
the boy) that might give you a kicking-off point for some discussion
about why she's like that? The least, I think, is to explore how he
feels about his mother's behaviour...
Just some thoughts
Tracy
Tracy Oldfield
> Tracy,I meant a label for how the mother's behaving, to explain perhaps
> I hate to label anyone, especially a child, ADHD or any of those
> things. They end up living into that label. I think some kids are
> just more rambunxious. Dh and I did try an herbal supplement for
> "active" children to help his neurotransmitters connect so stepson
> could think better and control himself. It really did seem to help
> with his speach and behavior. He could get a sentence out without
> starting over and was able to play with my sons toys without throwing
> and breaking everything. DH didn't like it though. Even though it
> had no relaxants he thought it made him too calm. My contention was
> that he could now think "better" and that had to feel nicer for him.
> But DH won.-Collette
>
that it's not anything to do with him, I'm thinking that if he's
choosing to watch violent things on the telly it may be because
he's trying to explain to himself why his mum acts how she does. I
agree completely with the whole labelling thing, otherwise than a
situation like this.
Tracy
Collette Mattingly
Tracy,
I don't think I'm quite understanding. Do you
think stepson is trying to label his mother's behavior or do you think DH and I
should try to figure out what's "wrong" with her in order to help my
stepson? Thanks - Collette
----- Original Message -----From: Tracy OldfieldSent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:47 PMSubject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: About tv limits> Tracy,
> I hate to label anyone, especially a child, ADHD or any of those
> things. They end up living into that label. I think some kids are
> just more rambunxious. Dh and I did try an herbal supplement for
> "active" children to help his neurotransmitters connect so stepson
> could think better and control himself. It really did seem to help
> with his speach and behavior. He could get a sentence out without
> starting over and was able to play with my sons toys without throwing
> and breaking everything. DH didn't like it though. Even though it
> had no relaxants he thought it made him too calm. My contention was
> that he could now think "better" and that had to feel nicer for him.
> But DH won.-Collette
>
I meant a label for how the mother's behaving, to explain perhaps
that it's not anything to do with him, I'm thinking that if he's
choosing to watch violent things on the telly it may be because
he's trying to explain to himself why his mum acts how she does. I
agree completely with the whole labelling thing, otherwise than a
situation like this.
Tracy
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
Addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Tracy Oldfield
> Tracy,I was wondering if her behaviour had been labelled already, and if
> I don't think I'm quite understanding. Do you think stepson is trying
> to label his mother's behavior or do you think DH and I should try to
> figure out what's "wrong" with her in order to help my stepson?
> Thanks - Collette
that was something you could use with your stepson to help him
come to terms with it. I think!
Tracy