No subject

television is probably pretty neutral educationaly, but does have a mild
role in enculturating children as to the social landscape they face. It
*can* be handy for (for instance) letting kids know whats currenly in
vogue with other kids etc. (Ie knowing whats the latest pokemon
type game or what hi-5 are up to etc). These probably should not be
written off as they are kind of play training for the sort of rituals
adults 'play'.

That said, kids are dynamic. Not having a TV means kids have to figure
these things out organically. Ultimately I *suspect* infact that its
healthier for kids to actually go out onto the playground and work out
these cultural rules for themself.

The effect long term either way is probably minimal. I didnt have a TV for
ages and I *still* am a big geek :)

------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, James Devenish wrote:

> In message <200402011725.02085.leon at brooks.fdns.net>
> on Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:25:02PM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:03, James Devenish wrote:
> > > Do you have children? How are they supposed to LEARN
> > > anything without a TV?
> >
> > In a lot more depth and detail than if they were distracted by
> > information presented in half-hour sanitised-then-hyped doses
> > interrupted every ten minutes by dancing toilet paper and similar
> > inanities.
>
> I was, of course, being facetious. However, now that you bring it back
> up, the *absence* of television does not mean learning will increase by
> default.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> plug mailing list
> plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
>