18
Nov
09

On air: Are our children’s multi-media lives good for them?

We’re pulling together two discussions today. The first is about television. Charles Kenny, a Washington developmental economist, believes that TV can teach us all, including our children, useful lessons for life. He argues it’s too easy to dismiss its benefits. The second is a row that’s broken out over Facebook and MySpace’s refusal to adopt a help button for children to report concerns about grooming and bullying. (Here’s an excellent commentary on the story.)It once again raises the issue of how safe and beneficial being online is for children.  Wherever you live, children will have more access to televisions, computers, and mobile phones than they did ten years ago. And in many cases, they’ll spend more time consuming and interacting through these devices than kids did ten year ago. Is this improving their lives? Is the way they learn and communicate different but better or least equal than those who grew up before them? We’d like you personal experiences… 


53 Responses to “On air: Are our children’s multi-media lives good for them?”


  1. 1 Ronald Almeida
    November 18, 2009 at 14:51

    Are our children’s multi media lives good for them?

    It all depends on what kind of parents you are and what kind of children you want.
    If you are parents who’ve lived all your life in an urban atmosphere with no connection to nature, you only believe in science and technology you’d probably be happy with robots as children, so there’s no way it can be bad for them.

    On the other hand if you are intelligent enough to realise that the best of our technology will not come even close to the most primitive aspect of mother-nature, you are bound to want children who are natural. After all it has taken nature millions of years to develop them. They are neither hamburgers, nor instant coffee. But we all know there are enough people on this planet who couldn’t tell the difference if it hit them in the face.

  2. 2 Ronald Almeida
    November 18, 2009 at 15:07

    It may just happen that the children themselves may blame you for the choices you make for them today. Like for example, in spite of knowing that my own parents made their choices wanting and hoping the best for me, I still blame them for my Westernisation and Catholicism.

  3. 3 Gary Paudler
    November 18, 2009 at 15:10

    Any behavior that can be supported by purchasing an object is much better than anything that demands action or creativity or personal, physical engagement.
    Yes, our children’s multi-media lives are good for them and no, their multi-media lives are bad for them. Without this computer, I wouldn’t be able to conduct all my critically important kvetching without going outdoors, but I’ll spend most of my day outdoors or in my studio, anyway. Tomatoes are good, unless you fall into a silo of ketchup. I’m guessing that simple, black or white questions prompt the most responses, but WHYS’s most interesting days are when my fellow bloviators go off-road and introduce unexpected nuance and wisdom.

  4. November 18, 2009 at 15:21

    There may be more media now than ever before, but that is, unfortunately coupled with an increasingly more pervasive “hands off” style of parenting. I don’t believe for one second that there are any more dangers for children now than there were when I grew up, just easier access to trouble. If the parents are doing their job correctly, and above all teaching their children how to be safe from the earliest possible ages, then the chances of real dangers are greatly reduced. If the child is getting bullied, they can choose not to go where they will be bullied. When I was a child, I was bullied and beaten up incessantly outside of school (often in school too), but I learned to avoid the park closest to my home, signed up for martial arts more for “safe” social contact than the self defense although it helped. It is important for kids to learn to toughen up a bit, but as with most issues, it starts and ends with the quality of parenting.

  5. November 18, 2009 at 15:21

    Well, it depends on your answer to the one important question. Why did you have (or do you want to have) children? If it is simply to carry on the family name and some mixed genetic material, then by all mean, let whoever teach them. However, if you look at yourself and think that I would like to propogate my family values, morals, and culture on to another generation because I think that the human race can bebefit from it, then letting a video box spewing random information seems irrational at best.

    Think about the most important things about your character, family, and culture. What attributes do you think define them. Then consider how in the world they will learn them by spending most of their lives in either a school enviornment and then influenced by multi media. For those that have kids that just do some irrational activites and have said, “i never taught them to (wear those close, talk that way, value these traits, perception on drug, sex, spirituality, ect..).” You are right, you didn’t. You also never taught them not to do it either. Teachers, peers, and multi-media outlets have taught the minds of the body you created. “Welcome to the Matrix. Thank you for the warm body to fuel our machine. Now go back to sleep.)

  6. 6 Billy Wachakana in Kenya
    November 18, 2009 at 15:24

    Media impacts children in both positive and negative aspects of life. The whole thing depends with parents. Children may take say a movie star and convince themselves that “this is my role model”. Yet the role model is of a violent nature, this means that the child will grow up as a violent person in the society. the cycle repeats itself when a certain child chooses a calm and honest star as a role model.

  7. November 18, 2009 at 15:26

    I think that Mr. Almeida may be a little extreme in his stipulations… it’s either a wired-child or a wild-child in seems.

    Reality is somewhere in the middle I think. Yes you want to teach your children about the value and power of nature, the interconnectedness of all life, and the wonders of the natural world.

    But to think that in today’s day and age you can do that without any modern media (books, radio and telephones are considered media) than you’re foolish. Children cannot be taught simply through oral histories and be expected to be integrated into society – I’m assuming we’re ignoring those without access to such technologies of course.

    Technology, if used properly, is a marvel. To be able to have your child interact via Skype or other video conference software with another child on the other side of the planet is amazing. To be able to search through databases and libraries from the top universities around the world from the comfort of your living room is amazing. To be able to access and post various informational aspects, commentary, photos, videos, etc is great. It’s when parents are lazy and leave the children to the internet alone the problems start.

    If you left a child alone to any book they wanted to read you’d have problems… I think Playboys under a mattress were viewed as devlish and terrible to society at one point in time.

    • 8 Ronald Almeida
      November 19, 2009 at 09:09

      To Steve in Kenya.

      Sorry! You may be right. After all, ‘The middle path’ has been advocated by the greatest of philosophers.

      It’s just that, having stood with one foot in each boat and tried to see both sides of the coin has left me personally both very unstable and cockeyed in the bargain. It’s also the reason; I have avoided having children, and done away with the opportunity to manipulate them, as I had been by my parents, teachers, preachers, and in my opinion other such ignorant creatures.

      I do often think such discussions are quite futile, since no two ever see eye to eye. But then neither do my own two eyes, thanks to which I am able to see in the third dimension.

  8. 9 Roy, Washington DC
    November 18, 2009 at 15:30

    Technology isn’t a bad thing, but as children are more and more able to interact with others, they and their parents will have to be more careful.

    It’s like letting their child walk down a virtual Sesame Street. There are permissible activities, but you wouldn’t let them walk down an alley or talk to strangers. You would also tell them to be mindful of their surroundings, even though they’re in a seemingly “safe” environment.

  9. 10 William Rojas
    November 18, 2009 at 15:37

    No. I don’t think so. even though i’m not father, i realise that a large amount of children use multi-media tools in their daily life activities, and because of that, the spend more and more time doing different tasks that, and as a result, they create E-friends, E-relationships, and so on, causing pathologies such as distancing with friends, isolation, lack of sociability, etc. they need to spend more time with fellows so that they can be able to icrease their interrational intelligence, and therefore, be better human beings.

  10. 11 James
    November 18, 2009 at 15:40

    This is a sad commenter on the state of raising children in the world today. Mr. Charles Kenny, is a fool! Parents should be the soul resource for their children information. If the parents don’t know the answers, then they should get the proper answer for their children. Maybe that information can come from TV, BUT the parent should be right there to make sure the best and most moral spin on the information is getting to the child. Children’s education and life understanding has been given over to strangers, so parents can go off and acquire things! The results! We have an epidemic of heinous abuse of children in the world today. Parents are so self absorbed, they are standing around scratching their collective heads after each a every tragic situation involving a child. It is so sad to watch! We have given over our children to raise and protect themselves. They don’t have the tools to complete the job!

  11. 12 Tamatoa, Zurich
    November 18, 2009 at 15:56

    Whenever we talk about learning with media the case is clear. The media content and the way it is presented are the relevant factors that contribute to learning. In that case interactive e-learning modules (internet or offline) are better than TV. But both can work.
    As to the multimedia worlds: We adults chose to use this world so we have to teach our children how to use it. We adults have to teach them to distinguish cyber grooming and bullying from normal conversation. If we don’t do that then the button is useless. In my eyes we should teach our children to ask the parents or an adult to help them identify suspect contents. And then the parents should report the website.
    A conversation with a child is the best way to educate it. And no tv-program or e-learning module even comes close to a conversation with a child in terms of effectivity. And naturally the parents profit just as much.

  12. 13 Peter_scliu
    November 18, 2009 at 16:24

    Television , music and other multi media uses Hypnotism and other techniques to control our mind sublimally first by rythmn and then by suggestions. Such suggestion done in a dodgey way is definitely harmful .
    Less often the used underlying pictures like sexually explicit picture hidden in a family program. This technique is seldom used as if you can slow down the picture frame by frame , the picture will show up. Government and advertisers used such techniques.
    I stay away if you want to free your mind.

  13. November 18, 2009 at 16:27

    Here’s a link to some related research (academic, yay!) about teens’ recreational use of social media: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/11/08/hanging_out_mes.html

  14. 15 patti in cape coral
    November 18, 2009 at 16:30

    When I talk to my kids and their group of friends, I am often impressed with how smart they are and how savvy they are about world events. I think multimedia has a lot to do with this. It is certainly in invaluable tool for homework. If my daughter is sick and misses a class, most times she can get access to the lecture and assignments on-line, making it easier for the student and the teacher. The University also has a system that automatically sends a text message to all cell phones in case of an emergency, such as a hurricane warning, etc. She has also taken a few criminology courses on-line and really likes it.

    On the other hand, I have seen the other side of the coin, where multimedia seems to have made kids dumber and lazier, needing constant entertainment and gratification, texting all through dinner and barely speaking to their parents. My personal pet peeve is how kids are forgetting to spell due to texting. I know it’s petty, but it just irritates me beyond belief. So I guess multimedia is a tool and it’s in the way that you use it.

  15. 16 Alan in Arizona
    November 18, 2009 at 17:32

    I’ve always taught my kids that knowledge is power. Power to control, manage and improve their lives. Power to have a positive affect on others and help them when possible. Of course the same can be said about it also giving them power to do evil. We as parents are responsible for guiding them ever so gently in the right directions. But every little thing they learn now will effect their lives in the future, just like everything we learned that we thought would never matter, but has! Children need to be up to date on as much as possible to be capable of dealing with life and it’s ever changing circumstances and requirements.

  16. 17 Jim Wallace
    November 18, 2009 at 17:35

    With regard to Cyber-bullying and social websites. I’m so glad that this issue is being raise in such a public way. I, along with over a thousand British Facebook users, have been trying to get Facebook to do something about the abusive groups that are set up so easily and regularly. We started because of a child of ten who was the target of many hate groups. Despite numerous emails to the Facebook convenors nothing has been done – after months of emails they have done nothing – the hate groups are still there, with their abusive and threatening messages – against a ten year child ! I could name the groups in order to shame them and Facebook, but that would only draw attention to this child.

    I’ve heard it said that the web has become the same kind of anonymous public space as our public toilets, and we should not be surprised when we get the same level of moronic graffitti – the trouble is, the sewage on the toilet walls doesn’t get the same audience as the web, and it seems a lot harder – impossible even – to get the abusive meassages removed.

    Come on Facebook, put some of your profits into raising the standard of your services, and in protecting the vulnerable and innocent.

    Jim
    Brighton

  17. 18 archibald
    November 18, 2009 at 17:45

    Childhood is coming to an end at the hands of “multi-media”. The mysteries that once were the stuff of exploration and imagination are fed to young minds in a, “virtually spotless”, realm offering none of the trial, error and consequence that once kept children engaged and thirsting to learn, on their own terms.

  18. 19 gary
    November 18, 2009 at 17:46

    Most comments seem to suggest a “some good – somebad” outcome for childrens’ multi-media use. I too arrive just about the middle, except by not coming from either side. I think it’s all pretty neutral. Good parents still nurture well; poor ones don’t. Knowing about distant events is the good aspect of being able to worry about distant events. Texting happens at the expense of face to face conversation. Lost writing and spelling skills get replaced by new writing and spelling skills. Communication (the goal of these media) pretty well continues apace. Chatty children are still chatting; quite ones are still not chatting – only the mechanics have changed.
    g

  19. 20 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    November 18, 2009 at 17:52

    The technology is evolving and the children are growing up. We need to work with, and have due surveillance, of both.

    Discussions like this one today on WHYS are valuable, but only if you don’t really expect the question to actually be answered today. Our and our children’s multi-media lives are growing and changing as we speak. It’ll take many more years before we can come close to an answer.

  20. 21 subra
    November 18, 2009 at 17:53

    I just want to make a point and rather want to help parents.
    Television satisfies the eyes only; it give pleasure to the eyes and the brain is left unused.
    For children the best thing to improve their faculty is to read books. Thus the brain is utilized and helps in its development.
    I don’t imply that they should not be allowed to watch but that should be done with a view for distraction.

  21. November 18, 2009 at 17:55

    Multi-media, like all technology, is nothing more then tools to be used by those with opposable thumbs. It will generate one perspective on any issue your child might have a question on., The issue at hand though is that the only perspectiveyour child has. Can they look to you the parent and get affirmation of how they should feel about sex, drugs, work ethics, race, commitment, education, honesty, and other social perceptions. Or can they look to you and say, my parent doesn’t agree with the image I see.

    For instance they see a movie or video where teenagers or young adults are blowing off school and going out parting. You TELL them that isn’t the responsible choice to make and can lead to negative consequences. However, they see you routinly calling off on thursdays, after golf night turned into a late night out. The TV says it is fun and cool, and mom or dad say it’s not, but they do it as well. The multi media source has a direct message, the parents send a mixed message. at the very least they will require “further investigation”.

  22. November 18, 2009 at 18:04

    While I understand Jim Wallace’s concern (see above remarks), I am always confused about the parental control level in these situations. If a child was being physically bullied at school, and the parent was aware, the parent would travel to the school and discuss it with the teachers and principal. If they could do nothing (perhaps it wasn’t being done on school grounds), I would arrange to have someone accompany the child to and from school for as long as it took to get the bullying stopped. Or home-school the child; that is, DO SOMETHING ELSE! So the parents are aware that the child is being bullied, the parents have gone to the “social networks” and complained, yet they still allow the child to go online and get bullied? I’d just close those access points and not indulge in participating in the social networks. I agree, misuse of these sites is rampant and wrong, but not participating in them is also a very viable option. If enough people did it, something would be done by management, and it certainly would not hurt anyone to NOT SIGN ON for accepting that behavior. If it happened to me (and porn has shown up on certain sites, for instance) I just say, “Well, they’ve wrecked that site, time to move on.” Again, we come back to parenting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  23. November 18, 2009 at 18:30

    children shouldn’t be much exposed to the multimedia including the Internet and television as they may become distracting. As they are supposedly still inexperienced, they need guidance about how to use them and for how long.

    What matters is the quality of the items they’re exposed to. A child spending much of his time watching soap operas or playing games won’t benefit from them in the same way as a child who can plan his time focusing on items that can help him in his studies and to cope realistically with reality when grown up.

    There is also the danger of being exposed to extremist Internet sites that can inculcate in a child hatred of the others who are different from him racially and culturally. This, too, should be taken into account.

  24. 25 Jeff Poole
    November 18, 2009 at 18:43

    These social websites are voluntary and the rights of free speech for their users should not be trampled upon. If someone’s speech crosses into illegality then the victims have the right to have law enforcement become involved.

    This is akin to putting an adult on every playground listening to every conversation children have in order to make sure they ‘play nice’.

    Jeff, from Long Beach, CA USA

  25. 26 T
    November 18, 2009 at 18:43

    Regardless of where you live, being multi-media savy is necessary (for work and your personal life).

    The major networking sites will only implement changes if they have to (and there’s some benefit for them).

  26. 27 Tom K in Mpls
    November 18, 2009 at 18:59

    Why does Whys distinguish between, online social networking, TV, movies, music and all other forms of mass communication. While the ability for a person to spread a message globally has become commonplace, The clutter it produces renders it almost meaningless.

    Bottom line, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The rules and results of media have not changed. Some sources stand out, most are garbage and a combination of parental responsibility and children’s interests will decide what gets used.

  27. November 18, 2009 at 19:10

    It’s true that television has opened the eyes of many people on issues and standards they could have never known about. Sat televisions have broken state media monopoly as people can know about issues concerning their countries through (live) pictures, which helps them to be much more in the know.

    Television can also be an escape through, among other things,soap operas which add a flavour to people’s lives by engaging in the lives of characters and identifying with them.

    But it’s far-fetched to think that TV has fundamentally improved the lives of people as a poor person can enrich their knowledge by watching programmes of different sorts, but it can’t secure a good living standard if that isn’t coupled with concrete measures by leaders, who have full responsibility to improve the lives of the needy.

  28. 29 Mike in Seattle
    November 18, 2009 at 19:15

    A question for your panelists:

    Whenever I hear about watching too much television, I never hear how that is actually measured. I often have the tv going while I’m cleaning my apartment or cooking dinner, does that count? What about when I’m sitting on the couch reading a newspaper online while the tv is on, does that count towards the “excessive amounts of tv” being reported?

  29. 30 Danoski from Nigeria
    November 18, 2009 at 19:16

    Having kids plugged in all the time actually makes them a lesser shade of zombie. In the words of Michael Jackson: What about sunshine?

  30. 31 D from Indiana
    November 18, 2009 at 19:17

    First it was Rock and Roll, then it was video games and television, now its the internet and digital media.

  31. 32 margaret
    November 18, 2009 at 19:20

    I’m echoing everyone else. A mixed picture depending on your point of view–it is the best of times it is the worst of times. While I think the information on the net was inconcievable when I was growing up, I’m ecstatic that cyberbullying was not possible back in the day.
    Also having to watch a show on TV only when it was on and only what was controlled by the parents on the one TV we had I personally found intensely annoying as a kid. I personally find computer games very addicting and I can only imagine the impact this has on kids’ use of time and focus, socially, etc. I don’t think there is any way to keep only the good and eliminate the bad aspects of media / technology.

  32. 33 Robert
    November 18, 2009 at 19:22

    What I worry about is satellite television which allows migrant communities to receive programs from home with their dish antennas rather than watching local television and integrating in the host country. This is particularly alarming for children who are more readily influenced by television. Worst of all is islamist propaganda being aired unfettered and often reaching entire communities.

  33. 34 mike
    November 18, 2009 at 19:22

    Television and the internet have powers so immense that they can only be used for good or evil.

  34. 35 Tom K in Mpls
    November 18, 2009 at 19:26

    On air. It is a huge mistake to point out individuals. You will always find specific cases to support any argument. We need to look at historical trends and realize most of what is ‘new’ has happened before. ‘New’ forms of communication has happened many times before.

  35. 36 Annette Boyer
    November 18, 2009 at 19:28

    Our household has chosen not to have a television. My children, aged 14 and 16, have access to the Internet, and can watch TV programs on-line or via DVD. The difference is that when one program finishes, another one doesn’t automatically come on, as it does with TV. We find this makes a huge difference in how much we watch. The simple act of having to pick out another program seems to break the trance that we fell into with TV.

    Annette
    Golden, Colorado

  36. 37 Kate M.
    November 18, 2009 at 19:37

    I taught preschool for a year. Once a week we had a “movie day”. My class was aged 18 months – 2 years. At that age they learn nothing from tv or movies. The children sat there like zombies watching the movies. I do not think young children get any benefit from watching a lot of tv. It’s used as a babysitter and it’s not doing them any good.

  37. 38 Shannon in Ohio
    November 18, 2009 at 19:39

    Television and the Internet are not inherently bad, but parents who fail to monitor their children are. I find that these people are the first to complain about specific websites and programs and demand censorship, since they seem incapable of taking responsibility for the content their kids ingest.

  38. 39 Kate M.
    November 18, 2009 at 19:42

    You can definetely tell the difference when working with a child whose parents let them watch tv to learn information and those where the parents are teaching one on one.

  39. 40 Carole in OR
    November 18, 2009 at 19:45

    My concern is that if we attempt isolate our children and teens from technology, once they are older and we are no longer in control they are not prepared to view these things with discernment. I would rather that my son be exposed to TV and computer while I am available to teach him to question the value of what he sees.

  40. 41 Ryan in Alberta, Canada
    November 18, 2009 at 19:48

    The access to multimedia is just a difference in generations and can be very good for our children. It’s just like how the last generation liked to talk on the phone for hours at a time, except now instead of talking on the phone they talk online. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing as in the coming years more and more networking will be done online, and if our children are not familiar with this when they get into thier working lives, they will be left behind by those whose computer and multimedia skills were naturally developed over thier entire lives.

    In saying this, it is still the parents responsibility to educate thier children about advantages and disadvantages of being so immersed in today’s multimedia. Whether this means taking the stairs instead of the elevator, turning off the television to go for a walk, or if it means not talking on the cell phone while driving.

    Just like in the past this is just a new and different opportunity to educate our children, but instead of educating them on how to be safe on a farm, it is how to be safe online.

  41. 42 Louise Jennings
    November 18, 2009 at 19:59

    Louise in Brussels

    There are two issues at play here. First, the widespread cheap access to 24 hour TV and internet and the emphasis on materialistic success and wealth. Parents are working long hours and failing to engage with their children and families in general. Children are acquiring antisocial values. TV is full of messages about beauty and wealth not to mention the advertising and these are confirmed when children see their parents put their careers ahead of family time. We have TV and internet but our children are supervised at all times, they’re taught about how to use them and their time spent watching TV and on the internet is restricted. Like anything else in life moderation is the answer.

  42. 43 Dr. Gil Fuld
    November 18, 2009 at 20:08

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has published a number of policy papers on children, adolescents, and media. They may be accessed at the AAP web site http://www.aap.org/Sections/media/resources.cfm

    and a series of tips for parents to talk with kids and teens about social media and “sexting” http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/june09socialmedia.htm

  43. 44 GTR5
    November 19, 2009 at 00:11

    Yes, it is a good thing, up to a point. Kids need to get outside and do more exercise. Too many kids are overweight from eating too much and lack of exercise or sports. Sitting in front of a computer doesn’t help.

  44. 45 T
    November 19, 2009 at 04:19

    You can criticize the MSM all you want. Yet, how many of these people who do criticize actually work to change the system? Activism isn’t glamourous, highly paid work that leads to your own syndicated radio talk show. It’s endless, unpaid and thankless. And then you change the system.

  45. 46 Elias
    November 19, 2009 at 04:47

    Since the 1950s after world war 2, TV taught our children mostly the bad part of life, the programmes that were violent, films which showed many ruthless violence, it is far worse today, so that children get the wrong ideas, and grow up accepting it as being normal. Children need to be protected, if it is at all possible, there should be a watchdog to cancell anything that may be detrimental to children, for they are the future well being of a country. The old saying “Good news is no news”, The BBC has produced some very good documentaries, their world news is the best and factual.
    I am all for protecting the minds of children as they grow up in any and every way possible.

  46. 47 Mehran Wahid
    November 19, 2009 at 08:01

    Multimedia is fast becoming a necessity of life – like being able to drive a car. Our great-great-grandparents could walk many miles unlike us, so they would probably say we are unfit and lead unhealthy life-styles. So can you imagine them trying to make a living in today’s world walking miles to get to office but late?? Or not knowing how to travel in public transport?

    Or think of our ancestors saying computers are unhealthy and not knowing how to use them – what chance in today’s world?

    Multimedia is part of the future – if our kinds do not know how to use it to maximum advantage they will probably go the way of the dinosaurs. It is nothing to do with being like robots, etc, it is a matter of keeping up with the rest of the world!

  47. November 19, 2009 at 10:54

    our telex,type writer,juke box lives on our 18th and 19th,2oth century children including adults was good for them than the stone age.

    TV(tambua village/jebrock),HAMISI,VIHIGA,KENYA.

  48. 49 Anna Lowenstein
    November 19, 2009 at 11:24

    That’s a bit like asking whether you’d be better off spending your days walking in the woods or working in an office. No doubt if we all spent our time walking in the woods, picking nuts and catching fish, we’d all be happier, healthier and less stressed (although, paradoxically, our lives would probably be far shorter). But quite simply, that’s not the kind of world we choose to live in.

    Children have understood very well what skills they are going to need when they grow up, and they have been very effective at teaching themselves those skills – which mostly they have not learnt in school. Schools are way behind the children themselves in preparing them for that aspect of adult life.

    Of course it’s not good for children to spend hours on their computers or mobile phones. It would be far better if they played together, explored nature, read books, and did the things that children used to do before television was invented. As it is, it’s now up to parents and teachers to ensure that children also have a chance to enjoy those other healthier activities, besides giving them time to prepare themselves for the world they will find when they grow up.

  49. 50 John Smith - Jamaica
    November 19, 2009 at 18:44

    Varoius parts of our brain respond to different stimuli. I fear that with visual stimuli being the only thing children now receive, those parts of the brain used for critical thinking, problem analysis and deductive reasoning will recede and centuries of human brain development will reverse itself as we begin to use less and less of it for everyday functions.

    • 51 Ronald Almeida
      November 23, 2009 at 06:04

      Remember that even the visual stimuli is an unhealthy and a limited one. Instead of just getting your visual stimulus from a TV or computer monitor you were to look at the real world what a difference it would make. You will get a much wider view and a greater definition than the best technology of even the future will ever provide.

  50. November 21, 2009 at 15:32

    Perhaps or perhaps not. However, opticians are doing a roaring trade like never before in history.

  51. 53 scmehta
    November 22, 2009 at 08:21

    Multi-media does not improve our lives; it just makes it more interesting/entertaining. Its unsupervised/unmonitored use by the children can cause havoc to their innocence and overall normal development; it can even wreck their future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: