Date   

Re: TV

Melody Flurry <imagine1harmony@...>
 

Thank you for pointing out the fact that I wasn't very mindful of my statement and made an incorrect broad generalization. I did not mean to sound as though I think all advertising is bad (especially since my husband works in this field!). I actually like certain commercials, especially ones that I find amusing. Let me clarify somewhat--It seems that certain commercials which air on stations that are geared toward children try to make it seem as though kids need this or that toy in order to be fantastically happy. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting their intent. In any case, it bothers me that sometimes after viewing these commercials, my children will say "Can we get that?" and when I say no, and explain why I made that decision (for the expense of it, for example) then they sometimes (not always) get upset. I guess my point is that if they weren't bombarded with advertising during their favorite programs, I wouldn't occasionally have to go through this discussion. Not
that I mind having discussions with them, I guess it has more to do with helping them get to a place where they can understand that sometimes what you see isn't what you get, or to help them understand that just because you want something doesn't mean that it is wise to get it. I might want a new car--regardless of where I saw it--but it might not be wise to buy it if it puts me under financial stress.

I really have to apologize, because I think my comment--which I did not put enough thought into when I wrote it--caused a concern that I didn't intend. I'm not against advertising, and I do feel that everyone has the capability to discern what they want and need (children as well as adults). It's just that sometimes I don't feel the need to discuss a commercial relating to drugs that treat genital herpes to my kids, but maybe that's just me! And maybe the reason I get annoyed with toy commercials has more to do with a sense of want and need among people in third world countries, who don't have clean water much less 4 different colors of supersize floam, than it does with my kids wanting something (only sometimes, not always!) Thanks for helping me to examine the reasons behind my statement.

Melody


Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> I don't like the fact that sometimes my children watch TV and
then come to me wanting everything they see.
-=-The logic of this, though, is troubling-=-



And the statement of it troubled me.

"Sometimes" they want "everything"?

When parents make statements about children without carefully and
mindfully considering every word and every thought, they're not being
as careful as they need to be. When the statements are made in
writing in public, it's even more important.

Nobody wants "everything they see" but hundreds of thousands of
parents like to say things like that without thinking clearly, just
speaking parent-lines.



How is "the right way" to decide someone wants something? Those same
people who might get bristly at the cereal shelves at a mainstream
grocery store can go all soft and content at Wild Oats, though the
marketing strategy is just the same and the prices are way higher and
the quality might be a little higher.

If commercials are of the devil, and marketting strategy is
manipulation, is it okay to decide to want Zoombinis because Jocelyn
Vilter or Kelly Lovejoy thinks it's great? (I think it's great too;
that's not my point.)

Is it okay to decide to buy something because of a review in a
magazine? On a website? Consumer reports? I bought a dishwasher
last month, by reading Consumer Reports. Is that more virtuous than
if I had let a nice salesman kinda choose one for me and persuade
me? But our renters are probably going to get one just like I got,
because I told them they could buy one and give us the receipt (the
tenant can install it; very cool), but told them I really liked mine
and gave them a copy of that same report.

What if one of us saw a spiffy TV ad for that very model of
dishwasher. Then would we be somehow bound to ignore that to proove
we could think for ourselves?

Villifying something is a danger to our own clear thinking.



Sandra






Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.


Re: Validity (was Re: TV)

Melody Flurry <imagine1harmony@...>
 

I see your point. Maybe "valid decision" was the wrong phrase to use! I simply meant that if someone decides not to have a television in their home that's fine with me, just don't try to convince me that I shouldn't have one in mine. I use my TV for educational and entertainment purposes, and if someone thinks that TV is bad and they try to convince me that I am somehow harming my children by having one then I don't appreciate that.

The whole TV discussion reminds me of seeing Ted Danson (Sam from "Cheers") in an interview once where he said that he never had a TV in his home when he was growing up, and I think it's kind of amusing that he became a huge TV star in adulthood.

Melody


Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
-=-Not having a television in the home is a decision some parents
make, and I think it is a valid decision-=-

"Valid" in what context?
It's legal, but if it's limiting and superstitious and controlling,
it's not "valid" in light of the principles of the kind of
unschooling that's been discussed on this list for many years.

Using cardboard as roofing tiles might be "a valid decision" under
certain circumstances.

Not eating any food that's yellow might be "a valid decision,"
depending on the intent and purpose and result.

First one needs to decide on principles and intent, and *then*
actions can be judged better or worse in that context.

Without context, there can't be "validity."

Sandra








Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.


Re: TV

jenstarc4
 

People could live as the Amish do, refusing to have TV, automobiles,
phones...
OMG! I was just thinking that!

TV and internet ARE of the world; they are part of the real world.
Sandra
Well they are for us for sure!!!!! Note the exclamation points. I
remember growing up without tv and internet, but I wouldn't subject
that onto my kids. I've done the whole tv debate in my head over and
over because of not growing up with tv. Ultimately, it's about
choosing to do things and experiencing things that you find enjoyment
and value in.

I would never take that away from my kids and assume they wouldn't want
it, just because we didn't have it. If someone chooses not to have a
tv before they have kids and continues not having a tv after they have
kids, somewhere along the way, the kid's gonna want to know about tv.

Are they going to get that knowledge from the parents with support and
love or are they going to get it elsewhere. That same thing can be
applied to just about everything in life.

A lot of people we know personally don't let their kids watch tv, or
read manga. I can't even imagine doing that to my daughter without
causing a serious rift in our relationship! I love my kids and support
their interests, if something makes me uncomfortable, it's me, not them
that needs to examine that, preferably quuetly in my head. I have
learned so much through my kids, purely by allowing, or more supporting
their interests.

I really can't imagine villifying anything in their lives that they
might find very exciting. Well, I can imagine it, so I guess that's
why I don't do it.


Re: TV

 

-=-The thing is, I
don't see tv going away, or the internet, so I don't see how limiting
it and calling it bad is going to make a whole lot of difference.
Once a child is 18, there is very little a parent can do about
keeping their kids from that stuff. It's better to learn to live
with our world and get along with it, than to deny it and call it
bad.-=-

People could live as the Amish do, refusing to have TV, automobiles,
phones...

Unless they hope to please God and save their souls by such
sacrifice, the value of it is really questionable. They don't really
shelter their children from the world so much as make them more
vulnerable to it when they do get out there.

TV and internet ARE of the world; they are part of the real world.

Sandra


Re: TV

jenstarc4
 

Ah! a little Google/Yahoo searching and I have my answer:
http://www.geocities.com/independentmediaroom/

You're a book dealer.

An independent book dealer, at that. I'd say that's a vested
interest.
No one is truly unbiased.

Nancy
Well this person deals in comics. My daughter who has never ever
been controlled in her tv viewing, or internet, doesn't watch a lot
of tv. She does watch anime, and from anime, really started reading
because she wanted to read manga books that the anime shows came
from, then moved onto the internet to get access to the more obscure
stuff that isn't on tv. From there she moved into making videos,
myspace, working with html, design programs for editing pictures, and
on and on.

I can't help but thinking that if we hadn't watched Pokemon when she
was 3 and 4, she might not have done all that, and she wouldn't be
the person she is today. I really like the person she is!

Not to mention that a lot of people don't consider comics to be real
books, just a bunch of junk, like tv.

The whole "tv is bad for you" stuff is just a lot of propaganda from
people that think they know what is good for us. The thing is, I
don't see tv going away, or the internet, so I don't see how limiting
it and calling it bad is going to make a whole lot of difference.
Once a child is 18, there is very little a parent can do about
keeping their kids from that stuff. It's better to learn to live
with our world and get along with it, than to deny it and call it bad.


Re: TV

 

I don't like the fact that sometimes my children watch TV and
> then come to me wanting everything they see.

-=-The logic of this, though, is troubling-=-



And the statement of it troubled me.

"Sometimes" they want "everything"?

When parents make statements about children without carefully and
mindfully considering every word and every thought, they're not being
as careful as they need to be. When the statements are made in
writing in public, it's even more important.

Nobody wants "everything they see" but hundreds of thousands of
parents like to say things like that without thinking clearly, just
speaking parent-lines.



How is "the right way" to decide someone wants something? Those same
people who might get bristly at the cereal shelves at a mainstream
grocery store can go all soft and content at Wild Oats, though the
marketing strategy is just the same and the prices are way higher and
the quality might be a little higher.

If commercials are of the devil, and marketting strategy is
manipulation, is it okay to decide to want Zoombinis because Jocelyn
Vilter or Kelly Lovejoy thinks it's great? (I think it's great too;
that's not my point.)

Is it okay to decide to buy something because of a review in a
magazine? On a website? Consumer reports? I bought a dishwasher
last month, by reading Consumer Reports. Is that more virtuous than
if I had let a nice salesman kinda choose one for me and persuade
me? But our renters are probably going to get one just like I got,
because I told them they could buy one and give us the receipt (the
tenant can install it; very cool), but told them I really liked mine
and gave them a copy of that same report.

What if one of us saw a spiffy TV ad for that very model of
dishwasher. Then would we be somehow bound to ignore that to proove
we could think for ourselves?

Villifying something is a danger to our own clear thinking.



Sandra


Re: TV

Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
 

On May 4, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Melody Flurry wrote:

I don't like the fact that sometimes my children watch TV and
then come to me wanting everything they see.
The logic of this, though, is troubling. How about if we put it this
way, "I don't want my husband to want a new set of golf clubs so I am
going to set up his life so that he never even knows golf exists."

That is no different than someone refusing to let their kids watch tv
because the kids might see something advertised that they want.

(I realize this poster isn't refusing to let her kids watch tv, just
expressing her misgivings.)

However, it has given me opportunity to discuss and demonstrate
that you can't believe everything you see.
And, that won't just be a good skill for them in terms of tv, but in
becoming good at discerning how much to believe anything anybody
says, anytime.

My kids grew impatient with advertising, long ago, and choose to wait
to watch a show until it has been going on a while so that they can
use the DVR (TIVO-like thing) and just skip the commercials. So, we
start the DVR when the show starts, then go start watching it 20
minutes later. Or just record it and watch it later. No reason to sit
through commercials.

There are times we WATCH commercials though, for the enjoyment of
seeing how clever the writers are. Fun.

My husband, who grew up in Iran, never had tv until he was an adult.
He is FAR more susceptible to being swayed by commercials than our
kids (16, 19, and 22 year olds). He's a little naive about
infomercials, for example.

-pam


Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games

Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
 

I used to be a Marshall McLuhan fan - many years ago. But I now think
that he pulled much of his philosophy out of thin air - and it just
isn't the same air that I'm breathing these days. Neil Postman is a
great read, but he really is not talking about unschoolers - he is
absolutely focused on the lives of schooled kids.

Our ideas are truly just as valid, more so if we're talking about
unschooling families, because McLuhan absolutely never met a single
unschooling family, I'm sure. He never knew kids who grew up with all
the technology and without parental fear of the technology.

When someone goes on a scared rant about the evils of tv and video
games and the internet, etc., "we" know for sure that they aren't
truly aware of the possibilities inherent in an unschooling lifestyle
- we know for sure that they don't understand what a difference in
parent/child relationships there is between even the nicest
conventional parents and radical unschoolers. We know that tv-
watching and viddeo game playing are not hurting our children - we
know these as facts in the same way we know water is wet and sunshine
is warm - we know it with an absolute certainty because we are living
it, it is our own experience and the real life experience of hundreds
of other families we know.

-pam

On May 4, 2007, at 7:37 AM, joelman2k wrote:

I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
or discussing.

My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.


Re: TV

Nancy Wooton
 

On May 3, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

Given the content of your post(s), would you please explain your screen
name? I'm beginning to suspect you have a vested interest in opposing
"corporate media."
Thank you, Nancy
Ah! a little Google/Yahoo searching and I have my answer:
http://www.geocities.com/independentmediaroom/

You're a book dealer.

An independent book dealer, at that. I'd say that's a vested interest. No one is truly unbiased.

Nancy


On May 3, 2007, at 5:01 PM, indymediaroom wrote:

Why would a group of people who make such an awesome decision to not
send your kids
to public school, where kids will be indoctrinated to be good little
robots and obedient
workers and obedient consumers, turn around and allow them to be
"taught" by the
television (or corporate media of any form for that matter) which has
the same agenda as
the schools? Who do you think produces programming (go ahead and look
up that word)?

Can someone learn from "information" that is innacurate? If the
source of information is
erroneous (the wasteland of flotsam on the internet, everything on TV,
corporate
publishing etc) does that help the person seeking information or the
person creating the
propaganda? Have you ever noticed that school is only training for
future workers by
those who will take your tax money and try to take over the world
viiolently with it (and do
not want to be questioned by people who are busy watching TV and
playing video games,
among other things)? Have you ever noticed that video games make good
little soldiers
who are desensitized to destroying life?

"Why would unschooling involve allowing your kids to smoke crack as
much as they want?"

"Why would unschooling involve allowing your kids to kill others as
much as they
want?":o}}}}

Don't answer that.

Can we please move on in this country? There is absolutely nothing on
TV that is accurate
or valuable. The last time I saw a "Nature Program" on TV it was some
loud obnoxious
man on a motor bike running over plants and scaring the crap out of
all the animals. Why
do our daughters and sons have to watch the same degrading,
woman/mother/earth
hating, racist, classist, violent bore so they can continue the
prejudice and division that
keeps life meaningless and those in control powerful?


Re: Validity (was Re: TV)

Janet <janeteg@...>
 

At 11:18 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote:

-=-Not having a television in the home is a decision some parents
make, and I think it is a valid decision-=-

"Valid" in what context?

Sandra
I *think* it was valid for us when we lived way out in the country and had nothing but rabbit ears and couldn't get much in the way of reception and couldn't afford the cable. LOL ;-) (Which we now have as a package deal with our internet and phone, but none of us watch much TV - I just don't enjoy sitting still and the kids prefer their computers! But we have no "no TV rules! I wish they'd watch more since we have all those great stations...think I should institute a "no computers" rule so they watch more TV??)

I'm a new member of this list, an unschooler of 21+ years ... we have 6 children, now ages 25, 23, 20, 17, 13, and 9. I joined this list because I am an odd duck in the pond here in NW MN ... I know of no one else at all who unschools - most of the homeschoolers I know are fanatic "school at home - do this workbook and take that test" kinds. And if that works for them, fine, but it never did work for me. I like to at least listen in on others who unschool and find that their kids do indeed learn and grow and do quite well. The only thing that stresses me out is the annual testing the kids are required to take - even though we don't have to turn in our scores, they still are supposed to take the test and it's a boring waste of our time!

Janet in MN


Validity (was Re: TV)

 

-=-Not having a television in the home is a decision some parents
make, and I think it is a valid decision-=-

"Valid" in what context?
It's legal, but if it's limiting and superstitious and controlling,
it's not "valid" in light of the principles of the kind of
unschooling that's been discussed on this list for many years.

Using cardboard as roofing tiles might be "a valid decision" under
certain circumstances.

Not eating any food that's yellow might be "a valid decision,"
depending on the intent and purpose and result.

First one needs to decide on principles and intent, and *then*
actions can be judged better or worse in that context.

Without context, there can't be "validity."

Sandra


Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games

 

-=-I didn't say that the printing press destroyed the Catholic
church,-=-

You said it destroyed their monopoly.
I was saying they had fractionalization and localization before
printing that was somewhat amended by being able to publish and
disseminate information.

But what you were really saying was that technology is dangerous and
we can't ignore it.

Neither of those statements is about children and learning and
unschooling.

-=-Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.-=-

It's not worth discussing, as it's not unschooling and it wasn't
something you yourself experienced. If you want to debate history,
go to a history forum, or an anti-technology list. If you want to
participate on this list, write about unschooling at your house, and
how your kids are learning, and how your life is.

-=-My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.-=-

If they're not about unschooling, they're inappropriate for this
list. If they ARE about unschooling, then it helps others have more
data about unschooling. The observations of others about your
experiences, and the observation BY others of your experience is
informative, and it's a kind of research, too. It's a learning
opportunity for all concerned when unschoolers share their
experiences with other unschoolers, just the same as when those who
restore 50's Chevy trucks share their experiences with others who
have and work on the same kinds of trucks.

-=-This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.-=-

Ah.
There's an example of you being insulting.
This discussion might be going nowhere in your mind, but on the
AlwaysLearning list, where hundreds of people are reading what you
choose to write and post, there is a lot of learning happening.

If it's "clear" to you that that's nothing, your view could use
expansion.

Sandra
listowner
unschooling mom for 17 years, with a few more ahead


Re: TV

Melody Flurry <imagine1harmony@...>
 

Having a television in the home does not necessarily drive a family apart or cause children to go down the wrong path in life. Not having a television in the home is a decision some parents make, and I think it is a valid decision. My objections to TV programming have more to do with advertising than with some of the programs. I don't like the fact that sometimes my children watch TV and then come to me wanting everything they see. However, it has given me opportunity to discuss and demonstrate that you can't believe everything you see.

We watch TV together as a family, and discuss what we watch. I don't think that is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion. I love TV because it allows me to see things and learn things that I might not otherwise be exposed to. It also allows me to see what is going on in the world--good and bad--and therefore I can become involved in things that are important to me.

I just wanted to throw my two cents into the discussion because it seems that someone is always vilifying TV-- which in regard to expressing one's own opinion is fine, but doing so in an attempt to be self-righteous is not. Don't mean to offend anyone, it's just that we all have the ability and intellect to make our own decisions (this includes our children!).

Melody :-)


Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
-=-Never let it be said that you do not speak your mind. Well spoken,
we have no TV in our home and do not plan to. You are absolutely
correct when you say there is no value to anything that is on it.
Preserve your childrens minds and hearts, don't get a TV. It will
also keep your family close. You will spend more time together, and
will know each other better, and hence more likely to keep your kids
from all the things that are going wrong in this world.-=-


It's unlikely there is a family in which parents and children know
each other better than in a full-on unschooling family where children
are making decisions for themselves and not having parents tell them
what to do, to think.

Or maybe that was the point. If children are built and controlled by
parents, is it then easier for the parents to "know them better"?

-=-...more likely to keep your kids from all the things that are
going wrong in this world.-=-

My children are right midstream in some things that are going RIGHT
in the world. Because of my kids' experiences and freedoms, dozens
or hundreds of other families' lives have been richer and more
peaceful. The unschooling conferences that are being held
increasingly are celebrations of families in which parents aren't
living in fear and children aren't living in fear-based controls.

-=- You are absolutely correct when you say there is no value to
anything that is on it.-=-

It was NOT absolutely correct, and if ten or a hundred people come
and say "oh, so true!" that is not what creates truth.

Sandra







Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.


Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games

joelman2k <joelman@...>
 

--- In AlwaysLearning@..., Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

-=-
I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-

You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?

Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.
I didn't say that the printing press destroyed the Catholic church,
just that it was disruptive; that in addition to all the obvious
benefits you mention, the ability rapidly disseminate ideas brought
about a major shift in consciousness. To discuss the unanticipated
consequences of the printing press is not to dismiss the obvious
benefits. Do you deny the aforementioned theory? It sounds like you
don't even think it's worth discussing.

-=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-

If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.

-=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-

What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
"manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.
What have I said that was insulting?

-=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-

Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.

-=-
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture.-=-

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
information in in different ways. Most people take information in
several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.

-=-Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-

If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.

-=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
think?-=-

I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
have learned from your own observations of life.
I'm trying to discuss some ideas about how we interact with
technology. I've provided some references and citations to give some
context for them. I think that Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan have
some great insights into the influence of technology on society.
Apparently you don't think the references I provided are worth reading
or discussing.

My own observations of life are interesting, but if they're not
informed by the observations of others, ie by research, then it's
just navel-gazing.

This discussion is clearly going nowhere, so I guess I'll leave it at
that.


Re: TV and Video Games

Gold Standard <jacki@...>
 

I gifted the family with the new Wii system a few
months ago.<<
OMG total score!! Still checking game store regularly...

Happy for you (sniff),
Jacki


Re: TV

 

-=-Never let it be said that you do not speak your mind. Well spoken,
we have no TV in our home and do not plan to. You are absolutely
correct when you say there is no value to anything that is on it.
Preserve your childrens minds and hearts, don't get a TV. It will
also keep your family close. You will spend more time together, and
will know each other better, and hence more likely to keep your kids
from all the things that are going wrong in this world.-=-


It's unlikely there is a family in which parents and children know
each other better than in a full-on unschooling family where children
are making decisions for themselves and not having parents tell them
what to do, to think.

Or maybe that was the point. If children are built and controlled by
parents, is it then easier for the parents to "know them better"?

-=-...more likely to keep your kids from all the things that are
going wrong in this world.-=-

My children are right midstream in some things that are going RIGHT
in the world. Because of my kids' experiences and freedoms, dozens
or hundreds of other families' lives have been richer and more
peaceful. The unschooling conferences that are being held
increasingly are celebrations of families in which parents aren't
living in fear and children aren't living in fear-based controls.

-=- You are absolutely correct when you say there is no value to
anything that is on it.-=-

It was NOT absolutely correct, and if ten or a hundred people come
and say "oh, so true!" that is not what creates truth.

Sandra


Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games

 

-=-
I wasn't aware that the disruption caused to the Catholic Church by
the printing press was an obscure theory, or a matter of dispute. -=-

You read it two places so you think there are no other angles? Do
you want to "simply" declare it was disruptive and ignore all the
printed missals and catechisms and Papal bulls?

Printing might have assisted in the protestant movement, but
Catholicism is pretty healthy, globally and financially.

-=-I like TV, but I don't think it's a waste of life to be vigilant
against the damaging potential of any technology.-=-

If you always write what you really believe the first time, without
drama or hyperbole, the discussion will go better and people's
feelings about you will be better. This list will be better.

-=-I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. -=-

What you wrote and what you've been reading could be branded
"manipulative crap." It's not the best use of language to call
something "crap," nor for someone who's being strident and insulting
to use the word "manipulative" so quickly.

-=-Everybody's vulnerable, not just kids-=-

Water can drown people. Everybody's vulnerable.
Too much sun can kill a person. Everybody's vulnerable.
People can read things that make them miserable and paranoid.

-=-
Just to try to bring this back around to Learning, I'll say that the
kind of engagement we have with the spoken word is different than the
kind we have with the written word, which is different than the kind
we have with the moving picture.-=-

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Different people take
information in in different ways. Most people take information in
several ways at once. Some people are not much affected by the music
in a movie, TV show or play--for others it's the main component.

-=-Even the way we engage with TV
is different than the way we engage with movie on the screen. We
process each media differently: TV involves us more emotionally,
whereas the printed word requires more concentration.-=-

If that were a simple and absolute truth, which I don't believe it
is, some of the emotional triggering would involve facial expression
and music, and the surroundings. Outside, is it overcast and windy,
or sunny? Inside, is it clean and decluttered, or is it dark and
jumbly? Those surroundings are often described, in novels, for
effect. So are facial expressions. Some people picture them clearly
as they read, other people skim on past to get to the dialog.

-=-That's my takeaway from McLuhan's Understanding Media. What do you
think?-=-

I think you're writing a report, and not discussing what you yourself
have learned from your own observations of life.

Sandra


Re: TV & Computers WAS: TV & Video Games

Schuyler
 

I'd say: Sure, there is much that is informative and beautiful on TV,
but there's also lots manipulative crap too. Everybody's vulnerable,
not just kids. That's why so much money is spent on advertising and
creating the images that we see.

My kids aren't that vulnerable to television. There are occasionally things that they see advertised that appeal to them, and last night, watching Lizzie McGuire, Linnaea wanted me to brush her hair. But, on the whole they aren't that vulnerable. Probably much less to do with television and much more to do with themselves. If I view the television and its advertising as predatory, surely it is much better if I help my children, the prey items, to be stronger in themselves and less likely to be easy prey then if I only delay their association with television until they are no longer under my "watchful eye".

I think that there are ways that people can be vulnerable to the influences of others. But I don't believe that by opening the world up and exploring its rich wonderfulness and supporting your children in experiencing the joys that are possible will you be likely to increase their vulnerability. I don't believe that by saying yes to your children's dreams and desires you will produce children who are needy enough to believe that whatever advertised product will make them more complete or a better person. I do believe that you can imbue objects with greater power by demonizing them, by separating them, by saying to others that they aren't powerful enough to withstand whatever that object contains. I do believe that anything can go from the mundane to the sacred simply by limiting or denying access to that thing from pomegranate seeds or apples to television to a candy bar to a packet of chips. I know a boy who can't wait until he is grown so that he can eat meat and stay up late. Meat and late nights are his coming of age rights. And so the morality based vegetarianism may be lost on him, because meat is not murder, it is an adult privilege. It isn't his morality, it is his mother's. Just as shopping at Walmart or eating at McDonalds or watching Ed, Edd and Eddy might be for the children of somebody who is boycotting any of those things and making their children boycott them as well. Whether or not boycotting those things is an ethical thing, if the boycott isn't your choice...

The television has been on for much of the morning. It often is on for most of the day. Simon and Linnaea seem to enjoy the noise. They aren't watching it. They are finding magical rings that give them certain powers over the universe and Simon is hunting deer and wolves for him to eat or salt or smoke after Linnaea skins them. Linnaea is gathering plants and nuts and berries, she's a vegetarian, so won't eat the meat, but she is alright with using the skins to make clothes. Sometimes, in a lull of the movement and the storytelling, they will stop and watch something. Just now it sparked a conversation about being "book smart" versus other kinds of smart, a carryover of a conversation from last night. And, since this e-mail has taken me much of 4 hours to write, Simon has been practicing juggling and exploring some of a fingerprinting kit and Linnaea has made a few potions while sitting in the same room as the television. An active life is occuring with the television on, whatever "peril" that may be lurking, it isn't darkening our day.

Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com


Re: TV

Bob Collier
 

I watched a very informative documentary on TV not so long ago about
a group of midwives here in Australia who wanted to set up a birth
centre that was going to be very different from any other birth
centre in the country. It would be run entirely by the midwives from
top to bottom. No obstetricians allowed.

The obstetricians, of course, were furious. A public meeting was held
to debate the issue. A senior obstetrician took the podium to present
his profession's side of the argument. His profession's side of the
argument turned out to be a colourful description of every worst case
scenario he could think of.

"Well," I thought to myself, "we all know the thoughts that have
YOU wetting your pants, but, now how about some facts?"




--- In AlwaysLearning@..., "indymediaroom"
<indymediaroom@...> wrote:

Why would a group of people who make such an awesome decision to
not send your kids
to public school, where kids will be indoctrinated to be good
little robots and obedient
workers and obedient consumers, turn around and allow them to
be "taught" by the
television (or corporate media of any form for that matter) which
has the same agenda as
the schools? Who do you think produces programming (go ahead and
look up that word)?

Can someone learn from "information" that is innacurate? If the
source of information is
erroneous (the wasteland of flotsam on the internet, everything on
TV, corporate
publishing etc) does that help the person seeking information or
the person creating the
propaganda? Have you ever noticed that school is only training for
future workers by
those who will take your tax money and try to take over the world
viiolently with it (and do
not want to be questioned by people who are busy watching TV and
playing video games,
among other things)? Have you ever noticed that video games make
good little soldiers
who are desensitized to destroying life?

"Why would unschooling involve allowing your kids to smoke crack as
much as they want?"

"Why would unschooling involve allowing your kids to kill others as
much as they
want?":o}}}}

Don't answer that.

Can we please move on in this country? There is absolutely nothing
on TV that is accurate
or valuable. The last time I saw a "Nature Program" on TV it was
some loud obnoxious
man on a motor bike running over plants and scaring the crap out of
all the animals. Why
do our daughters and sons have to watch the same degrading,
woman/mother/earth
hating, racist, classist, violent bore so they can continue the
prejudice and division that
keeps life meaningless and those in control powerful?


Re: TV

Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
 

On May 3, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Tina Hanson wrote:

Well spoken
Perhaps honestly spoken but anything so full of inaccuracies devalues
the phrase "well spoken".

we have no TV in our home and do not plan to.
There does seem to be a faction who choose to homeschool and unschool
because it removes children from influences that parents fear.

But there is a faction who choose unschool because it nurtures who
their children are.

It will waste fewer people's time if it's pointed out that the list
reflects the values of the second faction.

"We have no books in our home and do not plan to."

If unschooling is about expanding our children's worlds and helping
them explore *their* interests, then does that sound like the mindset
of a parent embracing their role as their children's partner in
exploring the world.

Frankly, to me, it sounds like the heartfelt statement by
fundamentalist Christians who *also* want to protect their children
from bad ideas and want their children to only express ideas their
parents approve of.

You are absolutely correct when you say there is no value to
anything that is on it.
I don't think it would be useful to take chocolate advice from
someone who hates chocolate.

Preserve your childrens minds and hearts, don't get a TV.
How many unschooled children do you know? How many of Kelly Lovejoy's
Live and Learn conferences have you attended? Where *are* these
unschooling kids damaged by TV (and video games)?

And I honestly don't see schooled kids who are so damaged by these
either. I *do* see effects of school and disconnection from family in
them. I see children who turn to TV because their parents are too
busy. But TV as a demon who eats children's minds and hearts? Where
are the real live unschooling children to support that theory???

It will also keep your family close.
You have perhaps had experience or know of families who are
disconnected from each other. You have perhaps seen them shut each
other out with TV.

TV is not the cause of disconnection. TV watching can be a *symptom*
of disconnection.

Sneezing is a symptom of a cold. Plugging someone's nose so they
can't sneeze doesn't stop them from getting colds!

Unless you examine the true causes of disconnection in families, you
risk it creeping in unseen because you're certain you've protected
your family from it.

You will spend more time together, and will know each other better,
and hence more likely to keep your kids from all the things that
are going wrong in this world.
Why the assumption that TV watching is a solitary activity? While it
can be, if you've read the list long, one often repeated suggestion
is to watch (and do) what your kids enjoy *with* them. Watch TV
together. Play video games together. Be with them at least enough to
know what their interests are about to have meaningful discussions
with them.

Book reading is *way* more solitary! It's probably the most
disconnecting thing a family member can do at home. Should we
eliminate books? Or should we look at theories of childrearing with
rationality and reason and find out what really creates people we
hope our kids don't become and what increases the chances of
nurturing kindness and respect?

Joyce