Wow, this got heated. As an aside, I'd adore being Ben and Ariannah's children :)
Ron, I find it curious you're discussing developmental appropiateness and have yet my reply has gone entirely answered. I'll go through some of your points first. Firstly, a lot of what you're basing your opinion on is circumstantial evidence that does little to prove who it is for children, and simply illustrates how it was for you. Understanding that you were likely born prior to 1980, probably even prior to 1970, you can understand that I think the things which children face when they're raised now, we're mostly talking about children who have been born 1995 or more recently, are going to be considerably different, as is what knowledge is expected of them at different developmental stages. Sam wrote: For another, depending upon /what/ the child has experience with, it can really help out with logic and problem solving. Heck, it can even help teach creativity. To which you, Rob, replied: So do coloring books, crayons, toy soldiers, books, etc. Basically, almost everything except TV. I'm interested in why you feel that, because stimulus can be gained from the mediums you listed, it shouldn't also be gained from other tools, such as the computer. You think no one that gives code/time into Linux had computers at a young age? That's just blatently false. You said: "Thus, early exposure to computer technology is *not* necessary for someone to go on later and become a programmer." I don't believe that Ben, Sam, I, nor anyone else has said that's the case. I hadn't touched a computer until 1996, and yet I am still a perfectly proffecient graphic artist. I am yet to see how I can rationalise that into thinking I should raise my child deprived of TuxPaint. I find it highly ironic that you, Ron, said: "Those of us who are curious, or interested in technology/science (yes, there were even people like that before 1976) will be drawn to "a deeper understanding of" computers no matter how old we are." And that is /absolutely/ true of children born more recently than 1995, as well, and regardless of how you attempt to shelter your children, that will be true of them. The idea that one can prevent children from something they are interested in is not only abhorent, but fatally flawed. It's similar to the religious right thinking that they can persuade their children to wait for marriage to have sex by a complete and utter lack of education regarding it. Lack of information, in anything, will not lead to blissful ignorance, but a dangerous niaviety that's likely to get children in exactly the places we don't want them to be. So many people complain that Unix-derived systems are unfriendly and that they use Windows because it's easier and more intuitive. I'd rather raise my child with an early understanding so they work easily within a shell prompt, than have them exposed to Windows-only platforms when they've entered school, or the workforce, and resign themselves to the Windows-dominated world. (Though, not likely with our children, as Riordon is currently homeschooled. We're far too radical for mainstream schooling.) TV needn't be a babysitter; how it's used is entirely dependant on the parent. Parent's who are lazy and don't monitor their children's tv viewing are no better than parent's who are too lazy to monitor their children's tv viewing and thus do away with it entirely. either way you shake it, it's still lazy parenting. "Ian, my son, complained to me that all the other kids know how to read better than he does. I'm not worried, though, since he's only 5, and is progressing well." Do you find that you're overconcerned with your son's learning aquisition skills? You needn't worry about his inability to read, even if it were a complete inability, until he was a bit older. I would personally worry that your child is currently grading and marking his own progress based on the skills of others. That's a dangerous habit to get into that we suffer from academically as students, and emotionally as adults. You said to Thomas, that when you're children are older hat they'll still need Linux-based systems. When you're children are older, do you honestly believe that they will not longer need to be running and jumping, playing with toys, colouring, cutting, riding bike/scooter, etc? Do you believe that YOU, as an adult, no longer need to be running and jumping, playing with toys, colouring, cutting, riding bike/scooter, etc? Perhaps that's why obesity is so common in Americans. You seem to think, ron, that it is a very black or white issue, where children are either pushed to focus on academia, or on physicalness. Our household, we don't buy into gender stereotypes, or perconceived notions of those sorts. Children are children with their own desires and interests and feed into those as much as we can. We introduce them to other things, but to make things balanced by default means that we don't prohibitively exclude them from any one thing, including the computer. The idea that someone can hope to give their children a well-balanced education but expressly excluding something from it is, aside from abhorent, an alien concept and case of purely unlogical. ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
