I will never tell someone they are raising their kids incorrectly, with that said let me just say I fear raising kids with a strong focus on academics could lead to social misfits.
A strong emphasis on academics doesn't lead to social misfits. Maybe exclusives or overbearing emphasis--but that would be true of any form of training and nurturing. While not getting into causality, you could substitute "academics" with sports, arts, entertainment, etc as impact children in ways that can produce misfits, especially later in life when we start weighing people by their contribution to society and productivity. But strong academic focus has never been shown to lead someone to being a "misfit". Times are changing, but historically those with strong academic upbringings tended to be those who started companies, were successful politcally, etc.
Riddle me this, what makes playing video games worse then reading a sci-fi novel, or cheesy love story?
Depends who you ask. There is certainly sci-fi and love stories inappropriate for children.
As for video games, putting aside the time issues, what redemption can children find in walking up to a fallen enemy and curb stomping their brains? Or sneaking up on an enemy and ripping their guts out with a chainsaw? Or popping their head with a gun as if it were a bad Saturday night zit?
Assuming the theme of a novel and game are similar, here is the difference: A novel requires the individual to read, discern, and ponder what they are consuming. They are building their comprehension and critical thinking skills, building their grammar and spelling, and enjoying themselves at the same time by engaging new worlds, thoughts, and ideas. Reading a novel can be extremely engaging and entertaining. Playing a game has some benefits in regards to hand eye coordination and are fun. Games can also be social activities. They both have their merits and "time & place" but in terms of redeeming qualities reading wins. It is fun, like gaming, but you get much more from the experience in terms of growth--especially for children who are developing quickly and still "learning the ropes".
American culture has definately developed away from reading, and it shows. Case in point are these very forums. How many foreigners have superior English skills compared to Americans?
How much better is it for kids to play and interact with other kids (in any way including games) then to be only socially stimulated by their parents?
That isn't a fair comparison at all IMO. To invert it:
"
How much better is it for kids to play and interact with their parents (in any way including games) than to be only socially stimulated by kids".
Comparing a balanced norm versus an extreme isn't very practical. And in the case of the Gates (as well as myself) we are not talking about absolute exclusion, but about "balance" and "relative proportions" of time in regards to our family/social lives.
A big difference.
I dont know about you, but when I was in high school it wasn't the kids who had good grades who got picked on, it was the kids who were "out of touch" with what their peers were into. I've seen more damage done to the kids who cannot cope with being rejected from their peers then I have from kids who didn't play videogames or watch tv.
I can only speak of the schools I went to, but smart children were picked on for that very point. Nerd anyone? Yet the reality is that American schools are pretty brutal to all sorts of children, normal and otherwise. And real life is the same. But being "out of touch" and being picked on for such and children who "cannot cope with rejection" are not equivalent. The number of normal, well adjusted teens who committ suicide points this way as well (i.e. inability to cope with life in general isn't an issue that only faces the oddballs of society).
Being intelligent doesn't make you a better person, in fact most people who express themselves as being "highly intellectual" are usually self centered bigots who used education as a means to feel important. (General observation not insinuating anything about Josh)
Most people? That is a sweeping generalization, and one I would disagree with. I would say most people who express themselves as being "highly intellectual" do so because they are. Most get there by hard work; a naturally high aptitude for learning doesn't hurt but isn't always required either.
I've never understood the concept parents have of "filtering" what their kids: watch, listen too, play, wear or engage with.
So children can/should do all the following without their parents "filtering" these activities:
- Watch X-rate material as well as violent & gorish media
- Listen to hateful, racist, and violent music
- Play games with their friends that include intimate touching and dares
- Wear lingerie and sexually explicit clothing
- Engage in net dialogue with unknown individuals, engage in recreational drug use
All extremes, ones you probably object to, but that is the point! It is the job of parents to filter. And most people (dare I say > 95%) would agree that a degree of filtering is their responsibility. Our courts, in the US at least, still take this position and if a parent fails to "filter" certain activities from being taught to their children you will have CPS on your door.
FWIW, we don't believe in absolute non-exposure for our children. But we realize there is a time and place for everything. We are quite frank with our children about a number of topics (including death, sex, and so forth) but also believe that a 5 year old isn't prepared for the same knowledge and experiences a 15 year old is. Each child is different, knowing your child is important (most parents do not, due partly to the staggering percentage of broken homes and single parent families), and realizing that each child is unique. Preparing them to make wise decisions is important though. And ignoring the realities of peer pressure -- and how dumb and ignorant most youths are -- would be unwise. Children don't always make the best decisions when pressured by their peers. And while there is some give and take as they grow, asking a child to make a life altering decision about sex, drugs, etc too early is a huge mistake. You don't ask a 3 year old to make these decisions. There is always a degree of filtering and sheltering, as there should be. The question is how much and how quickly is the curtain of reality pulled up.
That is an issue every parent has to ask themselves. Lifestyle orientation, life experiences, goals, social pressures, etc are play into this and I cannot possibly give an answer for someone else!
The more parents try to shelter children from certain things the more they tend to rebel and go "too" far because they know no better.
A pretty big generalization. I know quite a few of my friends were given a wide latitude in regards to "sheltering" and they rebelled and went "too far" on many occassions because they considered it the "gray area". A perfect example was one of my best friends who was allowed to date quite early, and by 15 he was already having (unprotected) sex. He could date, hug, kiss... so why not push it a little further? Didn't really register with him that he wasn't prepared to be a father. And an anecdote on the other side is my wife's family who is extremely conservative (you would think they were Amish) and all their many children are on the straight and narrow.
Of course I wouldn't dare paint these as norms as a causality of a single factor. I think it is highly unfair to paint parent strictness as a singular barometer of resultant child activity. There are sooo many factors (influences from other authority figures, parental hypocracy, nurturing, family stability, on and on) that make it impossible to paint a single factor as the cause of something like "going too far" and "rebelling".
On rebellion in general, though, a childs relationship with their parents and the stability of their life have significant impact on such. There are no magic rules or guidelines, hence why you see "laid back homes" as well as "protective homes" equally bearing the issue of rebellion. the kids playing video games and those stuck reading books are no less prone to such thoughts and activities; painting "mainstream" children (i.e. those who engage in all social norms in regards to activites) as less prone to such is misleading IMO.
I was limited when I was younger with how much NES I could play, yet it didn't stop me from being bored throughout my entire education.
Very few things in life dealing with development are so clear cut; rarely will you find, "Activity X has result Y". I am not suggesting that playing games less capable of enjoying an excellent education BTW.
"Reeding" wasn't fun for me, I still find reading for the sake of reading "boring" I'd rather use it to research or read up on what actually interests me...not some novel I "should" appreciate.
I have not read a novel in over a decade. Yet I own close to a thousand books. Reading can come in many forms--which is the great thing about reading. The selection is wide and deep and perfectly tailored to all consumers--even the blind.
You are reading right now
I learned two foreign languages in high school and it was the worst use of my time I can think of...besides history. I NEVER use it and when i actually do I usually get the "you know french how interesting" and then ...NOTHING!
On languages... I learned 1 language in high school (Spanish). I hated it and never used it. Since then I have learned another language (love it, use it daily) and am embarking to learn another. In general languages are very useful... if you have a purpose for them. Be it personal or professional. It seems the languages you chose were ones you had no use/interest in. The reasoning (flawed or not) for requiring students to learn another language (in the US most 4 year universities require 2 years of a foreign language) is to broaden your worldview as well as challenge the student with new learning styles and learning skills. Even though you may not use French you hopefully have broadened your worldview as well as learned new skills and disciplines in the process. I have found that most of my students that I teach a new language to learn a LOT about their own language. This is largely because many of the basic grammar lessons you learned as a small child were passively learned. The language just "works" whereas learning another language gives you insights into the language learning process as well as insights into your own language you may have never pondered without the stimuli.
As for no need for history...
A firm grasp of history is vital in a lot of areas. Beyond general history and geography, just look at an area of interest like the economy, politics, diplomacy, war, weather... even computers and gaming. To engage in these topics thoughtfully requires a solid grasp of the history in each field, and in many cases many fields. And in terms of professional life being a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc requires a grasp of specialized knowledge and command of history.
History is all around us. Like books, there is no requirement that everyone have the same historical interests. But broad history (which is learned in most public schools; world history, US history, etc) is important to thoughtfully interact with the world we live in--especially outside the domain of US boarders--and having a good knowledge of a topic allows for much broader and thoughtful social dialogue.
B3D would be a wasteland if we didn't have a desire to learn, study, and engage the history of the fields of technology and software.
To sum up this bloated post I'm just trying to say that too many restrictions placed on young people doesn't always breed the results expected. Not saying rules shouldn't be laid down but the last thing you want is "rebellion" for the sake of rebellion as that usually leads to dangerous outcomes.
Parents looking for a "silver bullet" in any method are in for a rude awakening. e.g. We homeschool, but we are well aware that homeschooling isn't a "solution" for education, social, faith, etc issues that face families. It, like any other parental method, or tools. At the end of the day the interaction and relationship between parents and children and having healthy, wholesome, and stable homes with loving communication and training are a lot more important than the means to get there. That isn't to say that extremes cannot be damaging (they can be) or that being a good parent offsets the possible damage of introducing your children to harmful experiences too early (it may not), but keeping games away from a child won't
directly make them a better child. Like I noted above, very few things have direct causality in [positive] child development. Even tools like praising your child can have negative results when used inappropriately.
Overall though I would say Bill and Melinda are giving their children quite a bit of time to play video games. 5.75 hours is a bit of time to dedicate to a single form of entertainment. As a parent you would want to also budget time for sports and athletics, family activities, quite time, hobbies (like RC car racing and that sort of stuff) and so on.
The idea that they are possibly over-sheltering their children by limiting video game time to about 5% of their waking hours strikes me as odd.
Corwin said:
We try to encourage other forms of entertainment (building games, drawing, reading...). To each his own, I guess, but I certainly find Bill Gates' position reasonable.
Like you I am not trying to argue with others about what they should do in their own home. I don't believe I am in a position to tell anyone how to raise their children--nor do I wish to be. They are your children! As long as you don't overtly harm them through your actions and are meeting the basic standards society requires, then by all means be the best parent you can be in the best way you see fit! I also think the Gates' position is more than reasonable and surprised anyone would find issue with it.
Ps- after skimming my post... no posts at 4am! The thought of me teaching my children spelling... eek. Good thing my wife does that
I get to teach debate
