...Here in fact is the tragedy of child care; “alternative”:-

The author:-
.#... TV viewing does not really take the place of other activities such as playing outside. Children who watch more TV than others may do so because they are unable to go outside…#.

...Lazy options such as sitting children in front of a TV set, gives the child no options but to over-exercise their propensity towards “fantasy”, with no immediate consequence.

...Exercising the “lazy” option in this case, removes the imperative lessons of nature, which comes with immediate pain as a consequence of wrong decision making, given as "the-imperative of play" in the real world outside.

...When childhood lessons are transferred to the time of adolescence,as these lessons are when young children are given no option but the TV set as company, then childish decisions are a consequence to be borne by the young adult in the future, now equipped with an overactive and untested imagination.

Here, Here! Good to see Patricia Edgar is still going strong and advocating a balanced and moderate approach to TV watching, rather than some extreme 'fear & loathing' position that seems designed only to capture headlines. I do fear the overconsumption of media, like the overconsumption of food, leads to increased mental obesity - one can be actively engaged with TV and avoid taking productive action in 'real' life.

Yes, I agree with article.

Always thought that tv can be a useful tool for any youngster.

Sure we limit what she watches, mainly ABC2 and a lot of DVDs without ads, but i feel she has benefited much from some of the excellent shows available.

We all would like to think we have a smart kid, and I do downplay comments, but we are constantly told how bright our 3-year old (Feb birthday) is, how well she speaks and so on.

As usual, balance is they key with tv also part of a mixed activity approach. Her mother takes her to the park almost daily, she reads and draws a lot, she plays with her computer games and other toys, and she loves interacting with young kids at play groups and so on (only child)

The Jesuits used to say that if they were given the child for the first seven years of its life, then the child would be theirs (or the church's) for forever more.
Remembering too one of the immutable laws of the mind is that we become what we associate with, even in every moment.
How many countless thousands of moments does a child associate with, or become, quite literally entranced, while watching TV?

How many hundreds of hours does the usual child watch TV in the first seven years of their lives?
The usual child more or less becomes entranced while watching TV. As indeed do many adults - The Plug In Drug Marie Winn
What are they learning of being "taught" while in this highly vulnerable trance state? Remembering that children to not have the capacity to step back and more or less objectively evaluate what they are seeing on TV - it is all very "real" to them.

How is their neuro-physiology in both brain and nervous-system being patterned or formed?
How is it effecting their psyche? What psyche?

The truth is that the anti-"culture" created in the image of TV now rules the world.

This reference provides a unique perspective on what we have done to ourselves and are even doing very much more so to our children. And not just by TV.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/EE.html

It is also interesting to note that the Steiner system of edu

Daffy Duck:

Pearce appears to make sense thus:-

.#...He presents the idea of the heart - or compassionate mind - as a category of brain function equal in stature to the thalamus, prefrontal cortex and lower brain.[3] He believes that active, imaginative play is the most important of all childhood activities because it cultivates mastery of one's environment, which he terms "creative competence". Children denied that form of play develop feelings of isolation and anxiety…#.

...But I don’t believe the impulse for children to content themselves with excess TV viewing to be the “all and everything” of anxiety creation. It becomes arguable if the difference between intellect and intelligence factor greatly towards bad decision making either: Also, many children born to suspect mothers would be better-off not bonding with them.

...IMO Pearce confuses disparate issues.

Diver Dan - In a lifetimes work Pearce has attempt to find explanations and possible solutions, to the origins of violence, especially as it is now being dramatized in the world.

As such he has drawn upon all kinds of sources both academic and anecdotal, and via personal communications from many people who have come across his work and thus provided evidence from their own lives and experiences which confirm what he has to say.
Of course his work is mostly unacceptable within the academy.

You might also like to Google references to his book The Biology of Transcendence.

>>Asking parents to turn off television is unrealistic<<

Fail. I am 29. For the first 17 years (more than half) of my life we had no television in my house. My parents didn't turn off the television: there wasn't one to turn off.

>>TV viewing does not really take the place of other activities such as playing outside.<<

No, it takes the place of other activities such as reading.

With no other alternative my siblings and I read for entertainment. Television would have been cheaper: my parents must have forked up a whole lot of money to pay for all the books we read as kids. It doesn't appear to have had any noticeable negative effect: we've all done fairly well out of life. It has had some noticeable effect: I breezed through all my English classes without lifting a finger. I can spell better than most spellcheckers, although my grammar could be much gooderer.

There is a certain beauty and wonder in a the written word that even the best television cannot hold a candle to. This is why classic works of literature are still remembered, still read and still loved hundreds or even thousands of years after they were written - and why nobody will remember 'Yo Gabba Gabba' within the space of a generation.

Finally: this article would never have been written if there wasn't some contention over the idea that kids can have too much television for their own good. Nobody has ever even suggested that there is such a thing is too much reading. Given the difficulties in precisely quantifying the (possible) adverse effects of exposure to television on developing minds, why would any responsible parent even take the risk? Defenestrate your television and pack your kids off to the local library.

Cheers,

Tony

Someone once said that they prefer listening to the radio because the pictures are more colourful, louder and dynamic.
That is children create their own pictures in mind in response to the words.
So too when children are read to by their parents or whomever.
I can remember listening to the radio in such a manner when I was a child. Especially to a serialization of Kim by Rudyard Kipling on the Jason and the Argonauts show on ABC radio. And also to the Magic Pudding.

In the Steiner system of education children are not allowed to read until age 9 or so. The reasoning being that children are not yet psycho-physically equipped or developed enough to do so. And that doing so does subtle damage to the unfolding of their intrinsic awakening intelligence.

Instead they are read to on a consistent basis using classic stories, especially fairy tales which have many potential layers of meaning. Again they create the pictures in their own minds.

By contrast TV delivers pre-packaged pictures straight into the brains of the trance-induced babies/toddlers/children.
No imagination or responsive intelligence required!

And of course in all times and places in the past, and maybe still so in some parts of the world, story-telling was the principal way in which the values and world-view of the culture was passed on from generation to generation.

What kind of "culture" do children learn via the idiot box?

If teachers saw how my youngest son used TV as a learning tool, they would quickly find out that if others were the same, THEY would be out of a job.

At age 2, he could tell the time on a digital clock. At age 3, he could tell the time on an analogue clock.

He learned to add up and take away by watching "Sale of the Century" at age 4. He also learned the 5 times table.

By age 5, he could read a novel. By age 6, he knew a lot of the more prominent politicians and their roles in the parliament.

He learned a good deal of the above from watching children's programs and the 6.00 o'clock news.

Lorikeet
I suspect your little fellow had his parents(you) helping him to interpret what he was seeing and hearing on TV, and when he began going to school, his teachers assisted his development.
Even without the TV he probably would have been able to do, with your input, what you describe, and would have avoided probably several thousand adverts!

Our 5 children (3 boys, 2 girls) did not have TV at all (except for the occasional trip to friends and grandparents places)until the youngest one was 15 - she is now 24. We read to them, they played inside and outside, they loved making things, going for walks, dress-ups, cooking, etc. They have not been disadvantaged at all in later schooling, tertiary education and later life. The fact that my wife did not have a paid job through much of this time was no doubt a factor in their learning.

TV as an occasional baby-sitter is fine, provided the programs or DVDs are well chosen, but a better choice would be no TV at all. Not only do many children watch too much TV - adults often over-indulge in TV - but that is another topic!