# Infant and Child development - long



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

I have no idea where to post this... thought I would try here.

Basically I find that I am coming into conflict with most people around me on how to raise a child.... when it comes to babywearing, BFing, cosleeping, organic food, toys in moderation etc etc etc. Nothing new here, I guess most mamas on this board are in this situation in one way or another.

What I am trying to figure out is what ARE the developmental needs of our babies and young children.

My gut tells me that by incorporating my child into my life and letting him learn about my life, with my life objects in a way that he is not 'entertained', but rather left to explore, I will be meeting DS's developmental needs in a healthy way. Something seems very wrong to me about having babies and toddlers surrounded by bright noise and visual clutter without any 'down time'....

Also, DS is developing just fine, why would I want to 'stimulate' him with toys that 'teach' him? Surely he learns as much by sucking on, and playing with, a wooden spoon (I am talking about a 6 month old) as he does by garishly coloured expensive toys that have been marketed to parents as essential to development.

I am also thinking that it might not just be not necessary, but also perhaps over stimulating.... and therefore not actually that beneficial.... perhaps even a strain on the nervous system? (EEEK, I know this is not going to be a popular idea)

These thoughts come out of my conviction that TV is not a good idea for little children. This was confirmed for me when I heard of a study that links dypraxia (poor motor planning) with screen time - and the treatment??? PLAY! Outside, on swings and slides and see saws etc. Good old-fashioned stuff is actually just what our little children need. But now we pay lots of money to a professional to play with our children.

So, I am looking for two things:

1. Someone to contradict what I am thinking - get my brain cells moving

2. People who might have something to add. Here I am looking for links as well.

An idea that I am playing with is that the brain of an infant, a toddler, a young child and a school going child are all very different brains. With different needs, and different parts developing... ie initially the brain stem is the level that the brain of an infant is working on - ie all the reflexes.
Then the brain development moves up into the limbic area (with the reflexes integrated) and only when the child is older does the cortex actually start to develop. Kinda in line with Piaget's theory on cognitive development (the very little that I know).
I do know that perceptual development follows a progression from kinaesthetic experience, to a 3D, and then 2D, ie the child needs to move inside, on top, behind etc before he plays with blocks to learn about perceptual concepts and then finally it can happen on a page.

So, anyone out there thinking about this? Thought about this? Studied this?


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

I guess what I don't quite understand is what you are looking for-validation or a re~bunk of your parenting style?

I'm not really sure all that you are looking for--but personally I disagree with some of what you are thinking.

Quote:

garishly coloured expensive toys that have been marketed to parents as essential to development.
*Isn't this a left / right brain thing?*

What you may find appealing your child may not and may need more.

You do not need $$$ & plastic but _many_ people (babies too) enjoy color! This could be a simple as a colored tissue paper.
I guess I don't get the not adding stimulation thing. Who enjoys hearing the same book over and over, seeing the same pictures over and over, eating the same foods over and over, same music? ....again, what I see it more of a left brain / right brain thing. It is very hard to know at 6 months what type of child you are dealing with. Simulation does not mean again $$, it could be done very simply.

So much as been said about children left with "lack" of stimulation in orphanages and so much as be said about adding stimulation and it's benefits.
www.iahp.org

How many writes and artists formed their creativity because of their surroundings?

Wooden spoons are great, but are you adding new ones every other week? Different deigns, shapes? I really personally see that see new things adds to exploring. This could simply be done as many do with "toys" by having them around for a period of time and taking them away and re-adding them.

I feel there should be a distinction between "useful" everyday object (play things) and "toys".

Stimulation can take on _all forms_, but I definitely feel adding on a regular / weekly is essential.


----------



## isabchi (Sep 14, 2006)

:







:







:


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Thank you for replying.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
I guess what I don't quite understand is what you are looking for-validation or a re~bunk of your parenting style?

I think neither. I am sure that the choices I am making are for the best for my family. I am wanting to get a broad variety of opinions to help me better understand _why_ I am making the choices I do. Help me clarify what I am thinking.... If that can make sense.

Quote:

I'm not really sure all that you are looking for--but personally I disagree with some of what you are thinking.
Great, this is a good start.

Quote:

*Isn't this a left / right brain thing?*

What you may find appealing your child may not and may need more.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by right brain / left brain. I totally agree that what I find appealing is very likely not what my child would find appealing... I am inclined to think that an infant/young child experience things very differently from adults.

Quote:

You do not need $$$ & plastic but _many_ people (babies too) enjoy color! This could be a simple as a colored tissue paper.
I agree. But we do not live in a world without colour... our clothing, furniture, plants outside, food, utensils, bedding... in short the environment is full of colour. I *love* colour and working with colour. I just do not understand why children need 'special' toys to learn their colours and to appreciate colour... but I could be missing something.

Quote:

I guess I don't get the not adding stimulation thing. Who enjoys hearing the same book over and over, seeing the same pictures over and over, eating the same foods over and over, same music? ....again, what I see it more of a left brain / right brain thing. It is very hard to know at 6 months what type of child you are dealing with. Simulation does not mean again $$, it could be done very simply.
I guess this is obvious to me. DS does like a variety... and has different spoons, rattles, dolls and 'stuff' that he takes a liking to that we are using.... it keeps him busy and he likes it. So, I guess I am providing a stimulating environment - without meaning to.

Quote:

So much as been said about children left with "lack" of stimulation in orphanages and so much as be said about adding stimulation and it's benefits.
www.iahp.org
I think this is a very extreme example. I also think that just because NO stimulation is so disastrous, does not mean that over stimulation is a good idea. Granted, how do you define over stimulation? However, integrating a baby into my daily life gives him automatic exposure to such a huge variety of things such as colour, shape, texture, movement, social interaction, language, the variety of human emotions.... pretty much everything (I think anyway). Why would I need to add to that if my child is developing 'normally'?

Quote:

How many writes and artists formed their creativity because of their surroundings?
I honestly do not know. I also do not know how you can attribute creativity to either the environment or the genetics - from what I have read (not a lot) it is very hard to do.

Quote:

Wooden spoons are great, but are you adding new ones every other week? Different deigns, shapes? I really personally see that see new things adds to exploring. This could simply be done as many do with "toys" by having them around for a period of time and taking them away and re-adding them.
This makes sense, rotating. It does keep his attention

Quote:

I feel there should be a distinction between "useful" everyday object (play things) and "toys".
What is the difference between play things and toys?

Quote:

Stimulation can take on _all forms_, but I definitely feel adding on a regular / weekly is essential.
I'm going to look more closely at what I am doing and see if this happens anyway.

Thank you so much for replying and getting this rolling. This is what I love about MDC.... I can be in touch with people and explore aspects of parenting that I otherwise would not be able to.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

right brain / left brain - many people look at the same thing in different way, some live in a house with all cream colored wall, others do not (just brief) what you may consider "over" stimulation may not even be enough for your child, everyone is different (again just brief)

I tend to view "toys" as _special_ objects just ment for PLAY, my DS loves the REAL telephone, but has a "PLAY telephone" to used, this goes for other objects as well.

I just feel lack of a changing environment (same toy/objects) and repetitiveness do not foster creativity. I feel a newborn need constant _changing_ stimulation to better develop and mature.

You might start by looking into your interests, be it art, music, literature, etc. and reading about the lives of those people of your interest, to better understand what stimulated them to become who they are.

There are tons of studies on developmental aspects, you just need to find what makes you content.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Sorry, serenbat...... but babies do need repetitiveness and routines for proper brain development. They need to get where they think ahead and anticipate the next move in their day.

To the OP, wear your baby so they see the adult world and you in it doing your thing. Then, sometimes put baby on the floor with a new object to explore or look at. Tell them about it, and then leave them to poke it and prod it on their own. An apple, an orange, a plastic cup, etc. Develop getting up rituals, naptime rituals and bedtime rituals in which you do the same things in an particular order so that you help your baby's cognition along. After only a few days your baby will look for the book when its storytime or get wiggly when its bathtime. It's so much fun to see them put their world together.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

The real world is constantly changing and evolving, adaption is essential for survival.

By child needs to learn that things change.


----------



## lmk1 (Sep 21, 2007)

I think incorporating a baby into your daily routine is great. However, consider that when humans were evolving, the daily routine meant going to gather foods, constructing shelters, making clothes (from plants, animals, etc), going on hunts, socializing around the campfire. You can see that there would be a lot of stimulation there. But what is our life today? Personally, I'm a computer programmer...how much stimulation does my baby get from watching me type on a keyboard for 8 hours or more? Mostly we have moved away from physical work where there is something for the baby to observe. And for those that still work with their hands, as in construction, is that really a safe place for baby? I think my baby needs more stimulation than what my lifestyle can provide.


----------



## Aeress (Jan 25, 2005)

SOme toys can help unlook a babies sense of curiosity without being loud, noisy and computer chip generated.

May I present my top list of toys: not in any particular order
1.measuring cups/spoons
2.pots and pans
3.wooden spoon
4.soft things (homemade baby blanket, stuffie or doll)
5.blocks
6.balls
7.boxes
8.music
9.books
10.you

other goodies
11. silk scarves
12.paper/crayons
13.clothes
14.instruments

Really, you probably own most of these in some form. They make great play things!


----------



## ASusan (Jun 6, 2006)

I will jump into the discussion, because it is something I think about a lot. OP - I have frequently had the thoughts and ideas that you present. Some things to add to the discussion here:

Design and marketing of "developmental" toys for infants (bright colors, sounds...) came on the heels of scientific discoveries about what infants "prefer" to look at and listen to. I put "prefer" in quotes because these studies basically determine an infant's ability to _discriminate_ between two stimuli and to look at/listen to one stimulus for longer than another one, not necessarily a _conscious_ preference or choice. So, an infant can discriminate between red and white, but not necessarily between two shades of pink that are close in hue. An infant can discriminate between black and white, but not necessarily between 2 shades of grey. Given a curved line or a straight line, an infant will look at the curved line, and for a longer time than the straight line. Given a pattern (checkerboard, for example) or a non-patterned visual stimulus, the infant will be more likely to look at the pattern and for longer. Given movement over stillness, an infant will look at movement...etc. The same sorts of research tell us what infants "prefer" to listen to - a woman's voice over a man's, patterned music (e.g., Mozart, but any repetitive music probably fits the bill) over random musical sounds. Primarily, the sound research is done by giving an infant a pacifier that is hooked up to speakers. The pacifier is controlled by sucking rate. If the infant sucks at one rate (e.g., fast), it hears mama's voice. If it sucks at another rate (e.g. slow), it hears another woman's voice. An infant will suck at the rate which allows it to hear mama's voice.

How does this get translated into the infant product market? Make toys in lots of bright colors!! Contrasts everywhere! Let's make infant toys with LOTS and LOTS of COLOR, and CURVES and MOVEMENT and PATTERN and NOISE... The marketers conclude that infants NEED to be stimulated with these contrasts...that it is GOOD for their development...that it is NECESSARY to add these contrasts ABOVE and BEYOND what is typically there in their everyday life.

However, the studies don't necessarily tell us that infants PREFER (make a conscious decision or choice) these stimuli. They tell us that infants can make the discrimination among them. In fact, there is much research to suggest that infants do not have the ability to CONTROL their attentional deployment. That when they look at one stimulus over another, it is because their attention is drawn to that stimulus, but they aren't necessarily CHOOSING to attend to that stimulus - their system just does it fairly automatically. Learning to CONTROL attentional deployment is something that develops over time and with regular repetition and routine (something another poster mentioned and is relevant here). An infant watches or pays attention to these stimuli because she MUST. She cannot control her attention enough to DISENGAGE from it. You and I have learned to ignore irrelevant stimuli and pay attention to all that is relevant, but an infant's attention is just drawn to what is the most obvious in her environment. If I banged a pot next to you or started playing music, your attention would be drawn to it, but you might be able to learn to ignore it over time once you learn that it is something that can be ignored. An infant MUST pay attention to that stimulus. So, an infant watches Baby Einstein not because she WANTS to, but because she MUST. Of course, there are individual differences in this - some will ignore the TV or be able to withdraw their attention from it. But, on average, infants have not developed the ability to consciously choose to watch TV. And when you put something on that is brightly colored, that moves, that makes sound...all these things draw their attention, and they, on average, cannot withdraw this atttention. Thus, parents who refer to Baby Einstein as Baby Crack.

THe same sorts of design and marketing decisions come from deprivation research (cited above by a pp), which shows that infants who develop in deprived environments show delays or deficits in development. But, there is no research that demonstrates that infants who develop in TYPICAL environments are lacking in development, are delayed, or are deficient in their development.

There is SOME research to suggest that stimulation is good. For example, rat research that shows that rats raised in an enriched environment - lots of rat toys like toilet paper tubes, habitrail-like toys, wheels, and lots of other rats for socialization - have greater dendritic structure in their brains than rats raised in a deprived environment - alone in a cage with adequate food and water. But, the extent to which this can be applied to humans, we're not sure. Yes, stimulation is necessary....but is MORE stimulation GOOD or necessary? Or are we to a point where we might be OVERstimulating our infants?


----------



## FREEmom1120 (Feb 23, 2008)

There is a really good page on early brain development in the stickies of the Family Bed/Nighttime parenting page.


----------



## ASusan (Jun 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FREEmom1120* 
There is a really good page on early brain development in the stickies of the Family Bed/Nighttime parenting page.









So I didn't need to spend 20 minutes typing that out and sounding like a pompous a$$?

But they are things that I think about. And they formulate my basic reaction to most infant toys on the market...


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *serenbat*


right brain / left brain - many people look at the same thing in different way, some live in a house with all cream colored wall, others do not (just brief) what you may consider "over" stimulation may not even be enough for your child, everyone is different (again just brief)


Left brain is cream coloured walls and right brain is colourful walls? Where does stimulation fit into left/right brain?

Quote:



I tend to view "toys" as _special _objects just ment for PLAY, my DS loves the REAL telephone, but has a "PLAY telephone" to used, this goes for other objects as well.


I haven't gotten to this stage yet, but DS loves to tug on the phone cord and pat pretty much everything that I am using.

Quote:



I just feel lack of a changing environment (same toy/objects) and repetitiveness do not foster creativity. I feel a newborn need constant _changing_ stimulation to better develop and mature.


I think we might disagree. I am inclined to think that if the environment is too unpredictable it would be stressful for an infant/child. There is something soothing about knowing more of less what is going to happen next, it kinda allows you to focus on doing what you are doing without trying to figure out what the next thing is.... if that can make sense. I know for myself when I am feeling overwhelmed I prefer some repetitiveness. I also know that this is used in treatment of all sorts of nervous and behavioural disorders. But perhaps we have a different understanding of 'repetitiveness'.

Quote:



You might start by looking into your interests, be it art, music, literature, etc. and reading about the lives of those people of your interest, to better understand what stimulated them to become who they are.


Interestingly I have been reading a bit about Yehuda Menuhin and was fascinated by his childhood and his mother protecting his childhood and his need to get outside and play in the playground with his siblings... yes, he also practices hours every day on the violin, but he also had to do stuff other kids do.

Quote:



There are tons of studies on developmental aspects, you just need to find what makes you content.


Agreed. I am hoping that through this discussion I can find some studies and just understand better what I am feeling.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *philomom*


Sorry, serenbat...... but babies do need repetitiveness and routines for proper brain development. They need to get where they think ahead and anticipate the next move in their day.


This makes sense, to me.

Quote:



To the OP, wear your baby so they see the adult world and you in it doing your thing. Then, sometimes put baby on the floor with a new object to explore or look at. Tell them about it, and then leave them to poke it and prod it on their own. An apple, an orange, a plastic cup, etc. Develop getting up rituals, naptime rituals and bedtime rituals in which you do the same things in an particular order so that you help your baby's cognition along. After only a few days your baby will look for the book when its storytime or get wiggly when its bathtime. It's so much fun to see them put their world together.


This is pretty much the direction I am headed in.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *serenbat*


The real world is constantly changing and evolving, adaption is essential for survival.

By child needs to learn that things change.


I agree that change is inescapable. And our children need the tools to deal with this. I am not sure I want to start equipping my infant to deal with change. I think he is too little, and just because this is something important to know in life, does not mean an infant needs to be exposed to uncertainty. I actually feel quite strongly that by keeping things as consistent as possible, I am laying the foundation for DS to deal with change when he is older and this is inescapable.... I am not quite sure why this is so important to me, but it feels right.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lmk1*


I think incorporating a baby into your daily routine is great. However, consider that when humans were evolving, the daily routine meant going to gather foods, constructing shelters, making clothes (from plants, animals, etc), going on hunts, socializing around the campfire. You can see that there would be a lot of stimulation there. But what is our life today? Personally, I'm a computer programmer...how much stimulation does my baby get from watching me type on a keyboard for 8 hours or more? Mostly we have moved away from physical work where there is something for the baby to observe. And for those that still work with their hands, as in construction, is that really a safe place for baby? I think my baby needs more stimulation than what my lifestyle can provide.


Now, this is a difficult point. I am one of those highly idealistic types who has put a hold on her career to stay at home and provide as consistent and varied environment as possible... ie we have our little morning routine, afternoon routine, evening routine and these routines include walks, meeting up with friends, dressing, undressing, bath, eating, outside and inside time with me singing, DS babbling, me on the computer (MDC), cooking, cleaning, in the garden while DS is with some object of fascination - or DS is in a sling. This is something I am very passionate about, and where we live it is financially possible, in fact financially preferable. But agreed, nothing much for an infant to learn by observing a parent on the computer 8 hours!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *brendon*


SOme toys can help unlook a babies sense of curiosity without being loud, noisy and computer chip generated.

May I present my top list of toys: not in any particular order
1.measuring cups/spoons
2.pots and pans
3.wooden spoon
4.soft things (homemade baby blanket, stuffie or doll)
5.blocks
6.balls
7.boxes 
8.music
9.books
10.you

other goodies
11. silk scarves
12.paper/crayons
13.clothes 
14.instruments

Really, you probably own most of these in some form. They make great play things!


Yes... I think we agree.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *FREEmom1120*


There is a really good page on early brain development in the stickies of the Family Bed/Nighttime parenting page.


Going to go and check this out!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ASusan*









So I didn't need to spend 20 minutes typing that out and sounding like a pompous a$$?

But they are things that I think about. And they formulate my basic reaction to most infant toys on the market...


So not a pompous a$$ - actually it made so much sense to me to read all that you wrote. And helped clarify for me why I am so annoyed by the infant toy market.... To date I have had to exchange every toy given to us (luckily the store has cotton clothes and Natural baby products)..... will be going over to read about brain development.







:


----------



## Marari (Sep 8, 2008)

Thanks for this post/thread! I find this so interesting and wanted a more "old-school" approach to my parenting too, though all moms know there isn't tons of time to research...so, I am constantly thinking about the great minds/talents of the past and asking myself:

what did THEIR moms do?

So DH and I arrived at: books outnumbering toys, no tv, plenty of mother nature and music, baby appropriate excursions, and the "family bubble."

As far as colorful toys etc...I also suspect there's likely some over-stimulation going on with these, but that it's more harmless than tv and trips to florescently lit/extremely busy stores/the mall IMHO. The great outdoors provides infinite variety for a babe, and museums, zoos...fun!!!!


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

This is a fascinating subject, thank you so much for starting this thread.

I do think that infants, toddlers and preschoolers learn best when things are consistent. They learn by repetition. That's why they ask for the same books to be read 10 times in a row. It might drive an adult bonkers with boredom, but the predictability, the repetition is how little ones learn. I think routine and repetition instills a sense of stability and confidence from knowing what comes next. Once that baseline of stability is created, then their brains are ready for more dynamic modes of learning. I venture to guess that the timing on this is very individual, but probably happens closer to age 6 and older.

Things like wooden toys, plain blocks, playsilks, beanbags etc. that are open ended toys actually foster MORE creativity, imo. A battery operated toy that makes noise and sparkles is yes, stimulating, but more closed in it's utility and flexibility.

Also, about motor skills being the basis of lifelong learning. There is a saying in pediatric PT (and ema, you probably know this, being an OT yourself) that "proximal stability leads to distal mobility." This is how fostering gross motor skill development and core muscle strength the early years, by jumping, climbing, running, bouncing etc, can have a direct impact on later fine motor/academic skills such as writing/penmanship.

As for equipping a child to "deal with change", in my very humble opinion, the best way to do this is to solidify in their minds that there are things that he/she can absolutely count on. I can also see a detrimental attitude about learning arising from constantly changing stimuli without the higher level cognitive ability (that comes with age and developmental maturity)to process the changes...the idea of "why should I bother learning this, because it's only going to change."

Looking forward to more discussion on this!


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

http://www.educarer.com/brain.htm

Quote:

Dr. Spitz did studies in the 1940's and found that infants *need a loving, trusting adult to act as the interpreter of life experiences, otherwise they have no meaning.* He compared infancy to being in a foreign land where no one can understand you or speak your language. This stable relationship is a necessity for survival.

Quote:

The root of all emotional feeling is in the brain stem. *It takes nearly one and a half years for a child to learn how to control her feelings.* How well she does this depends solely on the parents.

Quote:

Dr. Brazelton has said that he can recognize by eight months which kids expect themselves to succeed and which do not. *Children mirror what is around them - like sponges, they absorb.* If a child is in a violent environment, he needs a calm, nurturing and predictable caregiver. A mother only has to be "good enough", not perfect.

Quote:

Play is essential to a child's development. Everything is learned through play. The first ability to symbolize their experiences is through play. They duplicate the world around them. We, as teachers, learn about children by watching and listening to their play. Play is linked to mental development. *It is the experience, NOT the toy, that aids growth in the brain*. Observation is the best way for parents to learn about their children.
My bolding.

The article (I found it is the family bed forum) is amazing. I just put a couple of things that made sense to me, but pretty much it all makes so much sense! Wonderful read if you are interested in infant/child development.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
This is a fascinating subject, thank you so much for starting this thread.

We cross posted! thanks!

Quote:

I do think that infants, toddlers and preschoolers learn best when things are consistent. *They learn by repetition.* That's why they ask for the same books to be read 10 times in a row. It might drive an adult bonkers with boredom, but the predictability, the repetition is how little ones learn. *I think routine and repetition instills a sense of stability and confidence from knowing what comes next*. Once that baseline of stability is created, then their brains are ready for more dynamic modes of learning. I venture to guess that the timing on this is very individual, but probably happens closer to age 6 and older.
Yes! How exciting to be finding more and more mamas who think like this!









Quote:

Things like wooden toys, plain blocks, playsilks, beanbags etc. that are open ended toys actually foster MORE creativity, imo. A battery operated toy that makes noise and sparkles is yes, stimulating, but more closed in it's utility and flexibility.
Yes!

Quote:

Also, about motor skills being the basis of lifelong learning. There is a saying in pediatric PT (and ema, you probably know this, being an OT yourself) that "proximal stability leads to distal mobility." This is how fostering gross motor skill development and core muscle strength the early years, by jumping, climbing, running, bouncing etc, can have a direct impact on later fine motor/academic skills such as writing/penmanship.
Exactly! There is also lots about sensory integration! (I learnt about this 7 - 8 years ago, but am now wanting to study this is earnest)

Quote:

As for equipping a child to "deal with change", in my very humble opinion, the best way to do this is to solidify in their minds that there are things that he/she can absolutely count on. I can also see a detrimental attitude about learning arising from constantly changing stimuli without the higher level cognitive ability (that comes with age and developmental maturity)to process the changes...the idea of "why should I bother learning this, because it's only going to change."
Very interesting and lotsa WOW!

Quote:

Looking forward to more discussion on this!
Me too!







:


----------



## lovetobemama (May 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
Who enjoys hearing the same book over and over, seeing the same pictures over and over, eating the same foods over and over, same music? ....

Uuuuuhhhh....babies and toddlers!!! My niece is 9 mos old and recently learned to clap her hands. She would let my sister sing "if you're happy and you know it" 15,000 times a day if my sister could comply. My son loves "the very hungry caterpillar" and would let me read that book, and only that book, to him every hour of the day. And we have played with his wooden train tracks literally every day for the past 6 mos. There is SO MUCH to learn from playing with a familiar object in more than one way. By the way, with the trains for example, though it is the same toy, it is new every day because he can experiment with endless new combinations of track and trains, make longer and shorter trains, etc. He learns problem solving, patience, weight, length distance, etc. Something new every time!

I think one of our problems (someone referenced this already) is that current kid/baby toys are marketed for ADULTS in a couple of ways: 1. draw attention from a shopper on a shelf full of a whole lot of toys, and 2. encourage futher buying of the same toy or another toy from the same brand (keep us buying more!)

It is well documented (though I am cursing myself for not having the reference here) that noise levels on baby toys are generally set with the goal of catching an adult shoppers attention in the noise level of a large store. WAY too many decibels for what a child should have next to their ear playing with a toy at home.

And MANY toys are one dimensional. They can be played with in just one way. This leaves kids without the opportunity to make their own discoveries and develop creativity.

I have also read (though, again, don't have the refence with me) that if two groups of kids are both given the same wide variety of toys, but one group is given each toy one at a time, and the other group is given free range to play with all the toys in any combination they come up with, the second group will show dramatically higher levels of learning and creativity development with the EXACT same toys. So I read this as a testament to the importance of quality and experience and interaction with the environment rather than "fancy" toys.

**Excuse any weird sentences or incomplete thoughts...I only have a second free, and I tried to get in what I could, I will be back later to make more sense or clarify where needed***


----------



## x.xiv.mmvii (Jun 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marari* 
Thanks for this post/thread! I find this so interesting and wanted a more "old-school" approach to my parenting too, though all moms know there isn't tons of time to research...so, I am constantly thinking about the great minds/talents of the past and asking myself:

what did THEIR moms do?

So DH and I arrived at: books outnumbering toys, no tv, plenty of mother nature and music, baby appropriate excursions, and the "family bubble."

As far as colorful toys etc...I also suspect there's likely some over-stimulation going on with these, but that it's more harmless than tv and trips to florescently lit/extremely busy stores/the mall IMHO. The great outdoors provides infinite variety for a babe, and museums, zoos...fun!!!!

I love this and ITA. DS seems to really be into books now, and we love to encourage that.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovetobemama* 
Uuuuuhhhh....babies and toddlers!!! My niece is 9 mos old and recently learned to clap her hands. She would let my sister sing "if you're happy and you know it" 15,000 times a day if my sister could comply. My son loves "the very hungry caterpillar" and would let me read that book, and only that book, to him every hour of the day.









: Isn't it a classic thing that mom knows every.single.word of every.single.kid.video while the 2-year old's still saying "again!!"?

I think everyone interested in this topic should read the book "Einstein Never Used Flashcards." Basically, according to the child development researchers, the flashy toys are all gimmick and what the OP describes is the way to go for learning and learning potential.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovetobemama* 
My niece is 9 mos old and recently learned to clap her hands. She would let my sister sing "if you're happy and you know it" 15,000 times a day if my sister could comply. My son loves "the very hungry caterpillar" and would let me read that book, and only that book, to him every hour of the day. And we have played with his wooden train tracks literally every day for the past 6 mos. There is SO MUCH to learn from playing with a familiar object in more than one way. By the way, with the trains for example, though it is the same toy, it is new every day because he can experiment with endless new combinations of track and trains, make longer and shorter trains, etc. He learns problem solving, patience, weight, length distance, etc. Something new every time!

Yup!

Quote:

I think one of our problems (someone referenced this already) is that current kid/baby toys are marketed for ADULTS in a couple of ways: 1. draw attention from a shopper on a shelf full of a whole lot of toys, and 2. encourage futher buying of the same toy or another toy from the same brand (keep us buying more!)
Again, YUP!

Quote:

It is well documented (though I am cursing myself for not having the reference here) that noise levels on baby toys are generally set with the goal of catching an adult shoppers attention in the noise level of a large store. WAY too many decibels for what a child should have next to their ear playing with a toy at home.
Gosh, makes sense.

Quote:

And MANY toys are one dimensional. They can be played with in just one way. This leaves kids without the opportunity to make their own discoveries and develop creativity.
This is my biggest annoyance. I am not sure what kids are supposed to do with most of the toys when the toys essentially do the playing and 'entertain' the children. I am inclined to think this is not a good idea. I have not found the way to tell grandmother (MIL) that I do not want DS entertained - she thinks it's great and what's wrong with him being entertained?????? I guess I should be asking the question why it is not a good idea to entertain children as opposed to letting them explore and learn? It seems (form what I have seen around me) that this is what happens for many many families.... but it does not feel right to me.

Quote:

I have also read (though, again, don't have the refence with me) that if two groups of kids are both given the same wide variety of toys, but one group is given each toy one at a time, and the other group is given free range to play with all the toys in any combination they come up with, the second group will show dramatically higher levels of learning and creativity development with the EXACT same toys. So I read this as a testament to the importance of quality and experience and interaction with the environment rather than "fancy" toys.
This is interesting. Somehow I would have guessed that fewer toys would actually be getting better results... ie if there are too many toys it's too much stimulation and the child kinda doesn't know what to do, whereas a smaller number of toys and the child can construct their play without being overwhelmed by choice... but I could be off on that.

Quote:

**Excuse any weird sentences or incomplete thoughts...I only have a second free, and I tried to get in what I could, I will be back later to make more sense or clarify where needed***
Thanks for sharing!







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 







: Isn't it a classic thing that mom knows every.single.word of every.single.kid.video while the 2-year old's still saying "again!!"?

I'm not at this stage yet, but I am looking forward to it









Quote:

I think everyone interested in this topic should read the book "Einstein Never Used Flashcards." Basically, according to the child development researchers, the flashy toys are all gimmick and what the OP describes is the way to go for learning and learning potential.
I have seen this book in the education forum and thought: EXACTLY! And who is a better example for thinking outside the box in a creative kind of way?? I am going to have to get this book I think! And be able to present my choices in an intelligent way when family members freak out that I am not doing what every other parent they know of small children is doing.... Although slowly slowly I think people are getting that I might be on to something!!!


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

The way I explain TV and babies to my 3 year old is:

He is just a baby, he needs to learn all he can about real things, things he can touch and taste first.


----------



## 95191 (Nov 8, 2007)

There all ways for learning and what is fine for one may not be to the other.

As I mentioned, left and right / brain people, they _learn_ in different ways and _like_ different things as well. You may want to look at this web site and listen to the 360 pod cast
www.drawright.com
www.studio360.org/episodes/2006/09/14
~it's just a start to exploring the vas differences~

Quote:

"Einstein Never Used Flashcards."
this does NOT work for all, many left brain children only need to see a "flashcard" once, and the use of cards works for them.

Many children respond to *repetitive actions* (books read 10 times, songs repeated, etc.) but researches are finding NOT all do. Some are very bored and can not stand this type of actions. Schools are starting to change how they teach, no longer doing repetitive lessons and homework.

As with an infant, unlike most posters, I know of none who are able to maintain effective repetitiveness, nap time, feeding time, etc., are constantly in flux and thus promote change. What was fine at 6 months may not be a 7 months, there is constantly a need to adapt.

Some people like re-runs, others would not think to read a book twice, babies and children are the same way.


----------



## New_Natural_Mom (Dec 21, 2007)

I didn't read all the replies, so I am not sure if anyone suggested the book Our Babies, Ourselves? It is awesome. It discusses different parenting practices globally and how the human infant evolved over time so that much of the "western thought" on childcare actually goes against evolutionary biology. VERY INTERESTING!!!


----------



## PhotoJournMama (Aug 22, 2008)

I think that this is a great discussion, and although I don't have time at the moment to reply I just wanted to say that I have looked over the posts and requested some of the books mentioned from my local library. I also wanted to add a resource that I have enjoyed and others may have heard of - it's an organization called "Zero to Three".

It has lots of research information regarding brain development, as well as articles and handouts for parents regarding play, etc. Just thought some of you may be ibterested in some of the topics they discuss!


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
The way I explain TV and babies to my 3 year old is:

He is just a baby, he needs to learn all he can about real things, things he can touch and taste first.

Yes, this makes sense to me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
There all ways for learning and what is fine for one may not be to the other.

As I mentioned, left and right / brain people, they _learn_ in different ways and _like_ different things as well. You may want to look at this web site and listen to the 360 pod cast
www.drawright.com
www.studio360.org/episodes/2006/09/14
~it's just a start to exploring the vas differences~

I am rather notorious for not following up on links - or it takes me a long time anyway. I will look them up later.
I am fascinated to think of an infant having right/left brain learning. When looking at left brain/right brain I know that the hemispheres both process information differently and process different information. They also work independently and synergistically. I know that after a stroke the prognosis is very different depending on which side of the brain the stroke happened. I know that I took a test and found that I work 53 - 47 % of each side of my brain. However, from what I know we are talking about the cortex of the brain, not the brain stem and not the midbrain (correct me if I am wrong).

Quote:

this does NOT work for all, many left brain children only need to see a "flashcard" once, and the use of cards works for them.
The card works in the way that they have learnt a number/letter? From what age do you think flashcard can benefit a child?

Quote:

Many children respond to *repetitive actions* (books read 10 times, songs repeated, etc.) but researches are finding NOT all do. Some are very bored and can not stand this type of actions. Schools are starting to change how they teach, no longer doing repetitive lessons and homework.
Do you have links (that I will get around to looking at). How are outcomes being measured? What is a definition of success?

Quote:

As with an infant, unlike most posters, I know of none who are able to maintain effective repetitiveness, nap time, feeding time, etc., are constantly in flux and thus promote change. What was fine at 6 months may not be a 7 months, there is constantly a need to adapt.
I do not know what other posters experiences have been. With this being my first child and me learning all the time, I can say that my DS does not maintain a schedule - but there is a rhythm emerging out of the disorder/chaos, and I am trying to work with that. I also need my DS to fit into my life. There are things that have to be done that cannot wait and I do think there is merit to DS at 6 months fitting into my life (this is obviously not possible with a new born). I think I need to think about this more, as I am not expressing myself very clearly yet.

Quote:

Some people like re-runs, others would not think to read a book twice, babies and children are the same way.
I think this might be where we disagree the most. I think that the way infants and young children experience the world is fundamentally/qualitatively different from how an adult experiences the world. Of course it is impossible to claim something as being right for every child. I guess I do not see the correlation between an _adult_ not liking to see re-runs and a _child_ not wanting to be read the same story. Yes, both are people, but I would argue that the reason and adult chooses to see a re-run and the reason a child asks for the same story are different reasons... although I am not yet sure I can put my finger on why. I am going to think about this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New_Natural_Mom* 
I didn't read all the replies, so I am not sure if anyone suggested the book Our Babies, Ourselves? It is awesome. It discusses different parenting practices globally and how the human infant evolved over time so that much of the "western thought" on childcare actually goes against evolutionary biology. VERY INTERESTING!!!

No, I do not know this book. It sounds like it could shed light on this discussion. Could you share more?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PhotoJournMama* 
I think that this is a great discussion, and although I don't have time at the moment to reply I just wanted to say that I have looked over the posts and requested some of the books mentioned from my local library. I also wanted to add a resource that I have enjoyed and others may have heard of - it's an organization called "Zero to Three".

It has lots of research information regarding brain development, as well as articles and handouts for parents regarding play, etc. Just thought some of you may be ibterested in some of the topics they discuss!

I'll get to this link - it does sound like it could have interesting material. Could you also share more?


----------



## Firecracker! (Dec 2, 2007)

This is such an interesting thread! I wish I had more time to respond, but I just wanted to thank everyone for the different thoughts and opinions.

It occurred to me as I was reading, that isn't it possible that infants learn from BOTH novelty and regularity? I know I have read a study that concluded that infants learned from novelty (new things to look at, touch, taste, listen to,etc). I also know there is research showing that infants do well with regular routines and predictability. For example you can have an afternoon routine of napping, going outside to play, playing on the floor with toys, having snack- and yet have differences day to day....different toys or household objects to explore, different playgrounds or walking routes, different snacks to taste.

I would also agree infants come with their own tastes, preferences and temperaments. My own little one loves new things- gets excited over new foods, tosses old toys that she gets bored with, loves to talk to new people (and especially pets!). We have a baby friend of the same age that refuses new foods, loves the same toys, and is initially hesitant around new people or animals. When they are together the differences are very apparent.


----------



## lovetobemama (May 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
This is interesting. Somehow I would have guessed that fewer toys would actually be getting better results... ie if there are too many toys it's too much stimulation and the child kinda doesn't know what to do, whereas a smaller number of toys and the child can construct their play without being overwhelmed by choice... but I could be off on that.

**Glad you mentioned this, I knew I hadn't been as clear as I wanted. The children weren't given loads of toys, but were given a small assortment of toys and allowed to play with them in any way that they wanted, and in any combination. The problem with giving kids one dimensional toys one at a time was that they were creating just one play scheme for each toy. But when several toys were presented and children were allowed to play with any or all toys in an manner they chose, they explored many more play schemes with each toy, becasue they looked at it in any way they chose, and then combined it with anything they wanted to. Each new play scheme is a new set of synaptic connections that have been formed, and as far as brain development goes...the more the merrier!!
Here is an example from my son at 8 mos...he had a wooden spoon, and really enjoyed it for a few min but then got bored, but then I also saw a roll of packing tape. So I rolled it to him, and the kid spent something like 20 uninterrupted minutes just doing anything he could think of with the 2 items. Banging one on the other, than reversing it. Putting the spoon through the roll, then on the roll, etc. I'm sure if there had been 15 things, it would have been too much and he would have not explored either thoroughly, but because it was 2 familiar things, but put together, he explored them both in new ways. *Neither object technically a "toy", BTW!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 

this does NOT work for all, many left brain children only need to see a "flashcard" once, and the use of cards works for them.

Many children respond to *repetitive actions* (books read 10 times, songs repeated, etc.) but researches are finding NOT all do. Some are very bored and can not stand this type of actions.

I have 2 questions about this post: 1. For the first sentence, just because this may be true, does it suggest that flashcards then SHOULD be used in place of other types of learning? Just because some kids can learn from flashcards, does that suggest that they wouldn't learn just as well from being introduced to the material in other ways?

And for the second sentence above, what age children is this research referencing? I only ask because I was under the impression that the OP was talking about babies and toddlers, and, in my experience, I have never met a baby who didn't like some repetition. Like a baby who has just learned peek-a-boo for example...I have never met one who learned it, and then was immediately bored with it and didn't want to repeat it even just a little bit. Just trying to clarify! Thanks!


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
this does NOT work for all, many left brain children only need to see a "flashcard" once, and the use of cards works for them.

Don't get hung up on the title. While it does address what flashcards do and don't work for, that's only part of the whole thing.

I'm also not getting what babies needing different patterns of eating and sleeping at different stages of physical development has to do with arguing against repetition for mental development. Both 6 and 7 month olds (and 1 month olds and 17 month olds) eat when hungry, sleep when tired (okay, maybe not the 17 month old), doing so at different times isn't really "change."

I suspect that you're thinking in terms of older children. The book, and my take on this thread in general, is about kids under 6 years or so.


----------



## nolonger (Jan 18, 2006)

Megan, thank you for starting this discussion. i have appreciated seeing the different perspectives. This is a fairly big issue in my life right now too.

My healthy, happy, friendly, social seven month old is essentially toy-free and his development does not seem to be impaired by the fact that he plays with people instead of inanimate objects. Our family structure and lifestyle are quite nontraditional and i certainly wouldn't expect Terran to be blossoming so beautifully as far as going to work with me in the carrier if my job consisted of sitting at a computer for 8 hours straight every day, nor would i expect a dh who was paying all the bills so i could be a sahm to be...um...overly happy about my housecleaning and cooking standards, shall we say?.... but this is the life we have with the cards we have been dealt and i am very happy with what i am able to provide for my child.

My older children were raised with more of society's norm of "educational"
TV, always discontent and nagging for new plastic toys, hopelessly cluttered house, Christmas a nightmare of bickering, pettiness, and power trips among the adults in their lives and all that other crap most people who will read this haven't lived through yet.

I also found that the time I gained from having children who would "go to the other room and play with your toys now because we need to do big important things that grownups do when they get the children out from underfoot" was greatly overshadowed by all the time i had to spend pickintg up, organizing, cleaning, assembling, repairing, replacing and otherwise maintaining toys.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Bother, that rat study is bugging me because I swear I read some place that rats with no toys, but with other rats did better than rats alone with toys.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

This is a great thread. I am going to move it out to parenting since it's not baby-specific. Hopefully, you'll get a whole bunch of new voices chiming in.


----------



## nolonger (Jan 18, 2006)

Subbing. I can't find the other thread about going toy free that I started on FYT so I guess I'll have to remember and retype some stuff later.

I hope some of the mamas from my defunct tribe find this thread and post here instead.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noordinaryspider* 
Subbing. I can't find the other thread about going toy free that I started on FYT so I guess I'll have to remember and retype some stuff later.

I hope some of the mamas from my defunct tribe find this thread and post here instead.

It's right here. I found it with my mad searching skillz.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
Many children respond to *repetitive actions* (books read 10 times, songs repeated, etc.) but researches are finding NOT all do. Some are very bored and can not stand this type of actions. Schools are starting to change how they teach, no longer doing repetitive lessons and homework.

This may be true, but there's a fundamental difference between wanting a book read over and over and repetitive schoolwork. The former is child-directed while the latter is not. The children who crave repetitiveness will seek it out and request it. The children who do not, simply won't. No harm in choice, right? Where there can be harm, however, is when the repetitiveness (or lack there of) is _not_ by choice, as in the case where a loud battery-operated toy won't turn off of where the school teacher demands multiple worksheets to learn the same lesson. Which is funny, because I've yet to hear of a case where a parent forces their kid to sit through _yet another_ reading of The Very Hungry Caterpillar when she'd rather read a different book.

The point is that play and learning should be child-directed. A baby sitting on the floor can choose to play with the same wooden spoon everyday, all day. Or, the baby can choose to hide the spoon under the couch and never look at it again. You don't need to know ahead of time what type of child you have as long as you follow his lead.

From my experience, though, I'd say that more young children crave repetition than not. And for those that do, providing that repetition is a good way to help them grow and develop.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Firecracker!* 
This is such an interesting thread! I wish I had more time to respond, but I just wanted to thank everyone for the different thoughts and opinions.

It occurred to me as I was reading, that isn't it possible that *infants learn from BOTH novelty and regularity?* I know I have read a study that concluded that infants learned from novelty (new things to look at, touch, taste, listen to,etc). I also know there is research showing that infants do well with regular routines and predictability. For example you can have an afternoon routine of napping, going outside to play, playing on the floor with toys, having snack- and yet have differences day to day....different toys or household objects to explore, different playgrounds or walking routes, different snacks to taste.

I think this is spot on. (the bolded part). The way I am thinking at the moment is that within the framework of a rhythm, novelty can be introduced. I guess this would all be very personal. My concern is why do infants/toddlers need 'special' stuff to do this? Surely there is plenty of material in our homes and environment at large that provide this novelty (a later post gets into this). But I think we are on the same page, so to speak!

Quote:

*I would also agree infants come with their own tastes, preferences and temperaments*. My own little one loves new things- gets excited over new foods, tosses old toys that she gets bored with, loves to talk to new people (and especially pets!). We have a baby friend of the same age that refuses new foods, loves the same toys, and is initially hesitant around new people or animals. When they are together the differences are very apparent.
Of course, and the way I see it parenting is getting to know your baby so that you are meeting HIS/HER needs sensitively through observation.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovetobemama* 
**Glad you mentioned this, I knew I hadn't been as clear as I wanted. *The children weren't given loads of toys, but were given a small assortment of toys and allowed to play with them in any way that they wanted, and in any combination.* The problem with giving kids one dimensional toys one at a time was that they were creating just one play scheme for each toy. But when several toys were presented and children were allowed to play with any or all toys in an manner they chose, they explored many more play schemes with each toy, becasue they looked at it in any way they chose, and then combined it with anything they wanted to. Each new play scheme is a new set of synaptic connections that have been formed, and as far as brain development goes...the more the merrier!!

This makes sense.... I have been thinking that more than about 5 (totally random number) toys, and it just gets overwhelming. It's too difficult to make a choice and the child could get whiny.

Quote:

Here is an example from my son at 8 mos...he had a wooden spoon, and really enjoyed it for a few min but then got bored, but then I also saw a roll of packing tape. So I rolled it to him, and the kid spent something like 20 uninterrupted minutes just doing anything he could think of with the 2 items. Banging one on the other, than reversing it. Putting the spoon through the roll, then on the roll, etc. I'm sure if there had been 15 things, it would have been too much and he would have not explored either thoroughly, but because it was 2 familiar things, but put together, he explored them both in new ways. *Neither object technically a "toy", BTW!
I love this example. Of course I see this as being very important. I guess I see the mistake - if it can be called that - when more equals better, so children have TONS.... because 2 is better than 1, does not mean 50 is better than 5, at least the way I see things.

Quote:

.... just because this may be true, does it suggest that flashcards then SHOULD be used in place of other types of learning? Just because some kids can learn from flashcards, does that suggest that they wouldn't learn just as well from being introduced to the material in other ways?
My quibble with flashcards is that earlier doesn't mean better. And because kids can learn with flashcards does not mean it is in their developmental interests to do so. As an OT I would argue that spending time on flash cards takes away time from more developmentally appropriate _play_.... I guess it falls in line with earlier doesn't equal better, just like more doesn't better better.

Quote:

And for the second sentence above, what age children is this research referencing? I only ask because I was under the impression that the *OP was talking about babies and toddlers,* and, in my experience, I have never met a baby who didn't like some repetition. Like a baby who has just learned peek-a-boo for example...I have never met one who learned it, and then was immediately bored with it and didn't want to repeat it even just a little bit. Just trying to clarify! Thanks!
Yup, and young children 0 - 6 basically.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Don't get hung up on the title. While it does address what flashcards do and don't work for, that's only part of the whole thing.

*I'm also not getting what babies needing different patterns of eating and sleeping at different stages of physical development has to do with arguing against repetition for mental development.* Both 6 and 7 month olds (and 1 month olds and 17 month olds) eat when hungry, sleep when tired (okay, maybe not the 17 month old), doing so at different times isn't really "change."

I didn't get it either.. but not quite as clearly as you didn't get it







(no disrespect intended)

Quote:

I suspect that you're thinking in terms of older children. The book, and my take on this thread in general, is about kids under 6 years or so.
Yes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noordinaryspider* 
Megan, thank you for starting this discussion. i have appreciated seeing the different perspectives. This is a fairly big issue in my life right now too.

Hi, yes I am enjoying this thread too







:

Quote:

My healthy, happy, friendly, social seven month old is essentially toy-free and *his development does not seem to be impaired by the fact that he plays with people instead of inanimate objects.* Our family structure and lifestyle are quite nontraditional and i certainly wouldn't expect Terran to be blossoming so beautifully as far as going to work with me in the carrier if my job consisted of sitting at a computer for 8 hours straight every day, nor would i expect a dh who was paying all the bills so i could be a sahm to be...um...overly happy about my housecleaning and cooking standards, shall we say?.... but this is the life we have with the cards we have been dealt and i am very happy with what i am able to provide for my child.
This is what I kept getting back to, especially when Hillel was littler and not even remotely interested in "stuff" unless it was a loving gentle person.... but people would insist that he needs more tummy time, more time alone with a mobile, more toys... in short precisely things that I did not think were developmentally appropriate for a newborn / very young infant. Today at almost 7 months, he does enjoy sitting by himself playing with things and finally the child does not protest being on his tummy as he can get off by rolling over if he wants to!

Quote:

My older children were raised with more of society's norm of "educational"
TV, always discontent and nagging for new plastic toys, hopelessly cluttered house, Christmas a nightmare of bickering, pettiness, and power trips among the adults in their lives and all that other crap most people who will read this haven't lived through yet.
Eeeeek! This is pretty much what I would like to avoid - all of it if possible!!!

Quote:

I also found that the time I gained from having children who would "go to the other room and play with your toys now because we need to do big important things that grownups do when they get the children out from underfoot" was greatly overshadowed by all the time i had to spend pickintg up, organizing, cleaning, assembling, repairing, replacing and otherwise maintaining toys.
Again, something that I am not sure I want to invite into my life.... but I could be highly idealistic and unrealistic. For now I have kept toys at bay by just exchanging them.... but I see potential conflicts looming!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
This is a great thread. I am going to move it out to parenting since it's not baby-specific. Hopefully, you'll get a whole bunch of new voices chiming in.

Thanks - I really was not sure where this thread fitted best.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
It's right here. I found it with my mad searching skillz.









I'll be looking that up - it looks good









Serenbat - I looked at your links and immediately recognised Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. I love that book and have used it in my life. It is really awesome. I guess I am hesitant to apply what works for my adult brain to an infant brain. I would totally support this being part of art studies for adolescents, but am not sure that even a 7 - 9 year old would benefit *in the same way* that an adolescent/adult would. I am looking forward to any links you have on right/left brain and the infant or young child. Again, most of what I am writing is a hunch - this is the forum I am using to understand why I think the way I do about 0-6 year development. Interestingly, form the 0-3 website, I found a presentation citing that studies have found that early intervention does not = better.

Another thought I have been having.
When a study shows that children with flashcards learn to read earlier, why is it assumed that this is better?
I know that there are differences between rate of development between urban and rural children - with urban children learning at a faster rate when they are little. Does this mean that urban children grow up to be more intelligent, creative, sensitive, emotionally balanced people than rural children? I am not convinced. (I will now go and look for the link to this - it might take a while)

Thanks all for contributing and making this a wonderful thread







:


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

I know that you have all been discussing this quite eloquently, I just wanted to add some links to back up everything you have been discussing.
If you're interested in child educational psychology the theorists you should think of Googling are Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, Bloom and Dewey. These guys researched how people (and in particular, babies and children) think and learn.

Quote:

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was one of the most influential researchers in the area of developmental psychology during the 20th century. Piaget was originally trained in the areas of biology and philosophy. He was mainly interested in the biological influences on "how we come to know." He believed that what distinguishes human beings from other animals is our ability to do "abstract symbolic reasoning." Piaget's views are often compared with those of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), who looked more to social interaction as the primary source of cognition and behavior

Quote:

While working in Binet's IQ test lab in Paris, Piaget became interested in how children think. He noticed that young children's answers were qualitatively different than older children which suggested to him that the younger ones were not dumber (a quantitative position since as they got older and had more experiences they would get smarter) but, instead, answered the questions differently than their older peers *because they thought differently*
Here is an interesting link on stages of development.
It shows that young children use repitition to learn basic skills.

For those who dont follow links:

Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development

Reflexive Stage (0-2 months) Simple reflex activity such as grasping, sucking.

Primary Circular Reactions (2-4 months) Reflexive behaviors occur in stereotyped repetition such as opening and closing fingers repetitively.

Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months) Repetition of change actions to reproduce interesting consequences such as kicking one's feet to more a mobile suspended over the crib.

Coordination of Secondary Reactions (8-12 months) Responses become coordinated into more complex sequences. Actions take on an "intentional" character such as the infant reaches behind a screen to obtain a hidden object.

Tertiary Circular Reactions (12-18 months) Discovery of new ways to produce the same consequence or obtain the same goal such as the infant may pull a pillow toward him in an attempt to get a toy resting on it.

Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination (18-24 months) Evidence of an internal representational system. Symbolizing the problem-solving sequence before actually responding. Deferred imitation.

It doesn't matter if you have store bought toys or home made fun, babies tend to use the objects in the same way.
I think that most store bought toys have their hearts in the right place, I think they do try to stimulate baby brains.

What you need to do really is just *interact with your child*. If that means sitting with your child and reading flash cards or just lying on the grass and singing together, the point is that you're interacting with each other. This proves to be the common theme among all of the cognitive (ie. brain/thinking) theories listed above.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

I think the absolutel bottom line of the OP's question is: No one knows exactly, no one knows the details, much of this stuff is a mystery and "how kids turn out" is an extremly complex and varied equation.

If we all knew something is "good for baby" or "bad for baby", the logic is we would make a rational choice and do the good thing (of course, life is not always that way either and our choices for our children are complex and multifactoral). But it is often unclear what is the "right" choice. Is repition good or bad? Does a little candy every once in a while enhance the social experience or degrade health? Is a sling really making a difference compared to a stroller? What is inherently the difference to a child of a wooden blocks vs. plastic legos? Who knows for sure? And, to make things more complicated, the answer may be different for every child. As you know, some babies HATE co-sleeping. It is too much for them and they like a little personal space. Others really need the closeness.

So, what is a parent to do? Personally, my answer is that I read up on what there is to read, then I go with my gut and what works for us. The process isn't perfect. And of course, we all disagree over things. But there IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY, and that is what makes it beautiful but also frustrating.

As to a rationale as to why you are making the parenting choices you are... well, I don't think anyone can explain that to you. It probably has to do with your own processesing of how you were raised (your own memories and prefereces), your parenting role models, your oppinions of groups of people around you (I agree with THIS person/group on so much, maybe they have a point about THIS aspect of parenting), and your general life philosophy. But, it doesn't inherently or automatically mean that others are wrong







.

After 4 years of intensive parenting and thinking about a whole lot, I've come to the conclusion that we cannot compare parenting. We can share, we can talk, but that comapring is not useful and we can only become comfortable in our own skin.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

We have always liked a lot of color in our home. My kids like color, and I tend to lean towards bright pretty things. But, I don't think kids need an expensive electronic toy to learn, when a set of magnets on the fridge would teach the same thing.

I am more of the "If they are dirty at the end of the day, it means they had a good day"

I will give a 12 month old paint, just like I give a four year old paint. Yes, they eat it. (once. it doesn't tast good) I turn on a heating tray to let them melt crayons on. Yes, they touch it and say "ow" then they learn that it's hot, but it makes these great pictures.

I let them (bigger kids) play with old tires in the yard. They move them, they fill them with water, they stack them, they learn how many kids it takes to roll them over to the fence, and how many kids it takes to stack them so they can look over the fence.

I let the babies paint with colored chalk mush on the block walls outside my house. But, they can't paint on the house, and even the 12 months olds know this.

BUT, at nap time, I let them watch TV. Late in the day when everybody else has gone home, I let the last child play with the computer.

We love Dora the explorer, I actually kinda like Caillou, and I miss Blues Clues and Gullah Gullah island.

I personally don't see any reason in keeping kids from all the cute characters and fun electronic toys. But, I *don't* think letting a healthy kid lie on the floor watching an hour of television is a good idea. (But, if they don't feel good, I will turn it on and leave it on the whole day if they want)

I don't follow the kids around to see what they are doing. I provide an enviroment that they can move freely and get glue, or crayons, on their own. I don't go outside with them unless it's hot out. I let them work out their own problems to an extent and will step in only if the argument is unfair to one child.

But, I have plastic toys. I have plastic furniture, and I love them. I wish I had a few more wood things though.

My infants either sit in a baby carrier until my back is too tired, then they go in a soft on the floor type carrier. I don't have things that move or vibrate, or swing. (mostly because the other kids can't leave the buttons alone) WHen they get older, they can sit in a walker. (YES! I WORSHIP THAT WALKER, SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO SAY THEY ARE BAD... THEY ARE WONDERFUL LITTLE BABY CONTAINERS!!*says a small prayer of thanks to the baby walker*)


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

OH... also..

SOme of the BEST money I ever spent on my own daughter was for a four year long Gymboree class. That class was the very best thing I could have done for my child. I could pass up on some of her other "planned Play" things, but Gymboree was a Godsend.


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

Marketing is one of the main reasons buy into the idea that babies need "stuff." My MIL kept trying to push the Baby Einstein DVDs on us when ds1 was a baby. Her argument? "He can see all the colors!" Um, yeah... because we live in a black and white house!









I'm very anti- battery operated, light-up, noisy, so-called "learning" toys. Why anyone thinks a canned digital, horrible rendition of Mozart squealing out of a garishly colored plastic box is somehow "educational" is beyond me.







:


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybee* 
.My MIL kept trying to push the Baby Einstein DVDs on us when ds1 was a baby.

Those are kinda neat to have at Grandma's house though. I think my mom would have gone nuts without a copy of Babysongs and "Where's Spot" at her house when her grandkids were little. She would play and play with the kids, but then she'd beg them to watch a video.

Ya know what's weird though, ALL three of her grandkids had one favorite toy at her house....

The drink coasters. LOL. They would play for hours with the drink coasters when they were babies.


----------



## cotopaxi (Sep 17, 2007)

Awesome book:
Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds
Read it if you can - my library has a copy. It makes me really, really mad to see how much money companies get out of parents by making them believe that babies need expensive stuff.

I do not think that babies need DVDs, noisy toys, or anything like that, and I think they do more harm than good in most cases.

I think babies do need stimulation, but appropriate stimulation for a baby, IMO, is being worn and watching what mom and dad do, and being spoken to by mom and dad. Good point from a pp that if you are a computer programmer, no, you don't just want your baby sitting there watching you do that all day. But I think wearing my baby while I do laundry, cooking (safely, of course, not over a hot stove), yardwork, shopping at the farmer's market etc. is great for her.

Other than being worn, I think babies as they get older also benefit from play time. I think the simpler the toy, the better. The beepy ones are, as another pp mentioned, so one-dimensional. Blocks, spoons, bowls, cups, pots and pans, rocks, sticks... my baby has much more fun with these than with anything fancy. And I think they are just stimulating enough, without being over-stimulating or numbing - just like sitting and watching TV or sufing the internet is entertaining and gets your attention and can keep it but isn't necessarily good for you, I think those beepy toys and DVDs can grab the baby's attention but not necessarily stimulate their brains in the best way. I think they shorten attention spans, make babies crabbier, and decrease their ability to play creatively.

Now, I will say, I DO own some such toys and will watch tv with my now-toddler on occasion. But I use the toys and tv as TOOLS to do something, not because I think it's good for her. I will put on the tv, for example, when I need to give her a nebulizer treatment if her asthma is bad, because it keeps her still. Or I will let her play with her electronic piano if I HAVE to get some computer work done on a deadline. So I use them for *me* so that I can get what I want accomplished, not because they are essential to her development.

To the poster who said that repetition is boring to babies - wow, are you serious? My little one will ask for the same book over and over and over and over. Last night she entertained herself for like 10 minutes in the bathtub dropping a bath crayon through a rubber kitchen funnel that I gave her to play with in the bath. You could just see the little gears in her brain turning as she was figuring out the cause and effect.

And as she gets bigger, her greatest thrill is when I let her help me with something. She would 100 times rather hand me the utensils, one by one, from the dishwasher, or sweep with her little broom next to me than play by herself with a beepy toy. She will get excited for a new toy for about 10 minutes, but after she sees how it works, the thrill is gone. So far she never gets tired of helping me with the chores.


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

"The root of all emotional feeling is in the brain stem. It takes nearly one and a half years for a child to learn how to control her feelings. *How well she does this depends solely on the parents.* "

(bolding mine)

No pressure there!

Actually, temperment has a lot to do with it as well.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ*


I know that you have all been discussing this quite eloquently, I just wanted to add some links to back up everything you have been discussing. 
If you're interested in child educational psychology the theorists you should think of Googling are Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, Bloom and Dewey. These guys researched how people (and in particular, babies and children) think and learn.

Here is an interesting link on stages of development.
It shows that young children use repitition to learn basic skills.


I am going to get into all of this more with time and read up on the people you mentioned, as well as others I am sure! I am inclined to think the information is there and people are using it, and sometimes drawing conclusions that I would not draw!

Quote:



For those who dont follow links:

Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development

Reflexive Stage (0-2 months) Simple reflex activity such as grasping, sucking.

Primary Circular Reactions (2-4 months) Reflexive behaviors occur in stereotyped repetition such as opening and closing fingers repetitively.

Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months) Repetition of change actions to reproduce interesting consequences such as kicking one's feet to more a mobile suspended over the crib.

Coordination of Secondary Reactions (8-12 months) Responses become coordinated into more complex sequences. Actions take on an "intentional" character such as the infant reaches behind a screen to obtain a hidden object.

Tertiary Circular Reactions (12-18 months) Discovery of new ways to produce the same consequence or obtain the same goal such as the infant may pull a pillow toward him in an attempt to get a toy resting on it.

Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination (18-24 months) Evidence of an internal representational system. Symbolizing the problem-solving sequence before actually responding. Deferred imitation.


Thanks

Quote:



It doesn't matter if you have store bought toys or home made fun, babies tend to use the objects in the same way.
I think that most store bought toys have their hearts in the right place, I think they do try to stimulate baby brains.


This is where my husband stands on the issue.... DS will use everything in the same way, why get excited about whether it is an object form our kitchen or an object designed to entertain a baby? I guess I get passionate, as I do not see the baby toy manufacturers as actually meeting the developmental needs - and claiming to meet the developmental needs - and then parents think that they have to have something that costs lots of money or there child will surely be disadvantaged. I find this sad, as it just is not true. Parents have enough to feel guilty about without feeling like their child is being deprived or opportunity by not having x, y and z.

When you say that the toys try to stimulate the brain, are you talking about stimulating cognitive development ie get a brighter baby?

Quote:



What you need to do really is just *interact with your child*. If that means sitting with your child and reading flash cards or just lying on the grass and singing together, the point is that you're interacting with each other. This proves to be the common theme among all of the cognitive (ie. brain/thinking) theories listed above.


Bolded part: YES! singing and flashcards being the same kind of activity: not how I see things, but I can understand others seeing this.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *alexsam*


I think the absolutel bottom line of the OP's question is: No one knows exactly, no one knows the details, much of this stuff is a mystery and "how kids turn out" is an extremly complex and varied equation.


Yes, and no. My question has something to do with development and how can I as a parent best meet my child's developmental needs... what are his developmental needs? And how does this translate into the choices I make for which types of objects he interacts with, and how many etc....

Quote:



If we all knew something is "good for baby" or "bad for baby", the logic is we would make a rational choice and do the good thing (of course, life is not always that way either and our choices for our children are complex and multifactoral). But it is often unclear what is the "right" choice.


This is true, hopefully we would be making rational choices, but not every choice can be made rationally - there are just too many factors to be taken into consideration

Quote:



Is repition good or bad? Does a little candy every once in a while enhance the social experience or degrade health? Is a sling really making a difference compared to a stroller? What is inherently the difference to a child of a wooden blocks vs. plastic legos? Who knows for sure?


This is what it comes down to.... and trying to find the tools to make an informed decision - taking all the factors into consideration.

Quote:



And, to make things more complicated, the answer may be different for every child. As you know, some babies HATE co-sleeping. It is too much for them and they like a little personal space. Others really need the closeness.


This I do not think is development related, but personality related.... and of course requires an individual approach so as to meet the specific child's needs.

Quote:



So, what is a parent to do? Personally, my answer is that I read up on what there is to read, then I go with my gut and what works for us. The process isn't perfect. And of course, we all disagree over things. But there IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY, and that is what makes it beautiful but also frustrating.


I guess it depends who the parents are.... I go with a gut feeling and then read up, other parents do EXACTLY what their doctor tells them to do, or their parents or whoever. It is very unique for everyone. And of course there is no right way for each family ad each child in every single culture.... but I am inclined to think there are basic principles that apply to how children develop in their cognitive skills, emotional skills, social skills, volition (although this is really tough to look at), etc

Quote:



As to a rationale as to why you are making the parenting choices you are... well, I don't think anyone can explain that to you.


I'm not sure I was asking anyone to do that. I was asking people to share and through this allow me to understand what I am thinking more clearly - nothing like a difference of opinion to clarify the issue (for me anyway).... and also I was hoping I might learn something - which of course I am.

Quote:



It probably has to do with your own processesing of how you were raised (your own memories and prefereces), your parenting role models, your oppinions of groups of people around you (I agree with THIS person/group on so much, maybe they have a point about THIS aspect of parenting), and your general life philosophy. But, it doesn't inherently or automatically mean that others are wrong







.


I would agree that my parenting choices are based a lot on how I was brought up (although not as much as I would have thought) and I like your idea about my opinions of groups, I am going to think about that some more. Did you feel like I was implying that other people are wrong?

Quote:



After 4 years of intensive parenting and thinking about a whole lot, *I've come to the conclusion that we cannot compare parenting.* We can share, we can talk, but that comapring is not useful and we can only become comfortable in our own skin.


Agreed! That is just not productive and could lead to guilt and competition and all sorts of nasty stuff. However, I do not think I would ever do that and would want to be called on that if somehow I had. I am wanting to understand why I am making the decision I am and bounce ideas around about possible different choices that I had not thought of.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*


We have always liked a lot of color in our home. My kids like color, and I tend to lean towards bright pretty things. But, I don't think kids need an expensive electronic toy to learn, when a set of magnets on the fridge would teach the same thing.

I am more of the "If they are dirty at the end of the day, it means they had a good day"

I will give a 12 month old paint, just like I give a four year old paint. Yes, they eat it. (once. it doesn't tast good) I turn on a heating tray to let them melt crayons on. Yes, they touch it and say "ow" then they learn that it's hot, but it makes these great pictures.

I let them (bigger kids) play with old tires in the yard. They move them, they fill them with water, they stack them, they learn how many kids it takes to roll them over to the fence, and how many kids it takes to stack them so they can look over the fence.

I let the babies paint with colored chalk mush on the block walls outside my house. But, they can't paint on the house, and even the 12 months olds know this.


Sounds like fun!

Quote:



BUT, at nap time, I let them watch TV. Late in the day when everybody else has gone home, I let the last child play with the computer.

We love Dora the explorer, I actually kinda like Caillou, and I miss Blues Clues and Gullah Gullah island.


These are your choices, and I guess it is obvious that I might not make the same choices, although I might - not being a parent to older children I have no idea how this will all come together.
However, I feel I must say, that this is not totally relevant to the thread on infant and young child development... or am I missing something?

Quote:



I personally don't see any reason in keeping kids from all the cute characters and fun electronic toys. But, I don't think letting a healthy kid lie on the floor watching an hour of television is a good idea. (But, if they don't feel good, I will turn it on and leave it on the whole day if they want)


Again, this is the way my husband is inclined to think, and not actaully being there, I cannot comment.... again, not sure where this fits in with developmental needs of infants and young children.

Quote:



I don't follow the kids around to see what they are doing. I provide an enviroment that they can move freely and get glue, or crayons, on their own. I don't go outside with them unless it's hot out. I let them work out their own problems to an extent and will step in only if the argument is unfair to one child.


OK, are we talking about parenting philosophy?

Quote:



But, I have plastic toys. I have plastic furniture, and I love them. I wish I had a few more wood things though.


Again, I am not sure why this is being posted.... Plastic toys is a whole other huge debate. Which I am sure has been debated in other threads a TON!

Quote:



My infants either sit in a baby carrier until my back is too tired, then they go in a soft on the floor type carrier. I don't have things that move or vibrate, or swing. (mostly because the other kids can't leave the buttons alone) WHen they get older, they can sit in a walker. (YES! I WORSHIP THAT WALKER, SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO SAY THEY ARE BAD... THEY ARE WONDERFUL LITTLE BABY CONTAINERS!!*says a small prayer of thanks to the baby walker*)


I do not want to be snarky, but as I have read through this post, I have realised that what I was wanting to address in this thread was child development and what developmental needs are - not parenting choices and where do you stand on the continuum.
Regarding Walkers - that is your choice. Not one that I would make. I do not think it could be argued as being a developmentally appropriate object - meeting a need for a parent, but not meeting an infants need. Although I may have missed something here too.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*


OH... also..

SOme of the BEST money I ever spent on my own daughter was for a four year long Gymboree class. That class was the very best thing I could have done for my child. I could pass up on some of her other "planned Play" things, but Gymboree was a Godsend.


What do you think was so special about these classes? What did you get from them?

I hope this thread can stay on track being a thread about developmental needs of infants and young children from a cognitive, emotional, social etc point of view and not become a debate on parenting choices/philosophies!

Thanks


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lmk1* 
I think incorporating a baby into your daily routine is great. However, consider that when humans were evolving, the daily routine meant going to gather foods, constructing shelters, making clothes (from plants, animals, etc), going on hunts, socializing around the campfire. You can see that there would be a lot of stimulation there. But what is our life today? Personally, I'm a computer programmer...how much stimulation does my baby get from watching me type on a keyboard for 8 hours or more? Mostly we have moved away from physical work where there is something for the baby to observe. And for those that still work with their hands, as in construction, is that really a safe place for baby? I think my baby needs more stimulation than what my lifestyle can provide.

You can still do these things, just not on the large scale our ancestors did!

Gathering food=Going to the grocery store and let your little one pick out some fruits or veggies. Let them carry a banana around in the store. I get "cheap potatoes" or a bag of green ones and let my boys play with them. They love playing with those darn potatoes









Constructing shelter: Set up a small tent in your living room, or create a makeshift tent out of sheets, chairs, and the coffee table.

Going on hunts= Go outside in your yard and "hunt" for bugs, caterpillars, worms, etc etc. It's great fun to watch a 3yo try to catch lightning bugs in the summer.

Socializing around the campfire=The modern dinner table *GASP* does anyone actually sit down and eat dinner together anymore? I know most on MDC do, but this is so simple and should really be a part of every family's day at least once a day. Better yet, if you're in an area that allows for one, why not have a campfire? Even most city and suburban areas will allow a small, contained fire if you have a permit from the fire dept.

What about a vegetable garden as an example of physical work? We did our largest yet this summer and our boys (3 and 2) immediately wanted to join in on taking care of it. They would fight over who got to water it. We taught them how to pull weeds, our 3yo loved to pick the cucumbers and put them in the bucket. We took them out to their grandparents house in the country and we brought them along on our black raspberry harvesting. I was so impressed and amazed at how intently they looked for those shiny black berries and how focused they were on the task. We also took them strawberry picking at a U-pick farm-TONS of kids there doing the same thing.

So you see, there are plenty of ways to re-create these avenues of stimulation for our children, even in the modern world.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
What do you think was so special about these classes? What did you get from them?

For my dd, I was given a free month as a baby shower gift. We waited til she was fifteen months old. Unfortunately the week before she was to start, she broke her leg. I went ahead and took her anyway.

She was the only kid crawling (because of the cast) Other kids brought bubbles and toys to her. They stopped the teeter totter to let her get on.

We stayed for four years, and in that four years she made some the best friends she will ever have. There is a small group of six kids (two boys, four girls) that she has been friends with most of her life. Two of them go to her high school, one of them is in her church small group class, two of the girls are in dance with her.

The class singles each child out during parachute time. The kids take a turn going in the middle of the parachute and the grownups sing a song about that child while he or she pops the bubbles that are just for him or her.

They learned to take turns, help, cooperate, great music, movement activities. They tried things that might have been scary in another situation. Kids who don't have things to climb on got to get some of that monkeyness out of their system for an hour one day a week.

I learned new things too. I still use a lot of what I learned in Gymboree in my daycare.

Anyway, those are really good memories for both of us.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noordinaryspider* 
Megan, thank you for starting this discussion. i have appreciated seeing the different perspectives. This is a fairly big issue in my life right now too.

My healthy, happy, friendly, social seven month old is essentially toy-free and his development does not seem to be impaired by the fact that he plays with people instead of inanimate objects.

I also *found that the time I gained from having children who would "go to the other room and play with your toys now because we need to do big important things that grownups do when they get the children out from underfoot" was greatly overshadowed by all the time i had to spend pickintg up, organizing, cleaning, assembling, repairing, replacing and otherwise maintaining toys.*


I hate this so much. I hate picking up their playroom, I hate all the toys in there that they don't play with. And I am already guilty of saying "Go in your playroom for a while, Mommy needs to do XYZ" And then they cry and whine because they don't want to play with their stupid toys they want to play with ME. We have SO MUCH STUFF in there, and they play with some things, but certainly not all of it. We've been gifted with all of these annoying things, one of them was this Leap Frog toy that spun around and said the alphabet and the names of different animals. They would keep spinning it just to make it make noise, they weren't learning anything from it. My MIL, who is WONDERFUL at choosing toys and books, recently sent us a toy she picked up in Prague. It's a wooden kinetic hedgehog that goes down a little wooden ramp. It's tricky to get it to work, especially for small hands. But 2 year old Henri went NUTS when he saw it because she had sent us a book some months ago that had a hedgehog in it, and he's one of Henri's favorite characters in that book. All these fancy, brightly-colored, crazy things and Henri loves the wooden hedgehog. I think if you are going to do toys, keep them very simple. This scenario has repeated itself many times over in this house. My kids always go for the simpler toys, or the pots and pans.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
I do not want to be snarky, but as I have read through this post, I have realised that what I was wanting to address in this thread was child development and what developmental needs are -


What I should have said is this is a pre-school. Not my own kids. But, developmentally, being in a walker allows them to be with the kids at circle time, or lunch time. They are part of our group, and they need to be on their level when I can allow it. The walker gives them a special new veiw. The kids love that walker. They like the freedom, they like being able to put their feet on the floor, they jump, they stand, and eventually walk and run in them. (at which point I get tired of having my toes run over and put it away)

The baby carriers are so I can hold them and still have my hands free. That allows them to be with me, and therefore are interacting with me, or the other kids, depending on wich way she is facing. But, she is not within reach of the child who want to "give" her hard toys. (from three feet away)

The baby containers are not developmental at all. It's not a "choice" either. I need to put them down sometimes.

I'd love to be able to put a baby on the floor, but I don't feel safe with other kids around. There is a lot of development that goes on, on the floor. That's where babies learn a lot of what they need. They learn to hold their heads up to look around, they do the "airplane" thing, they stretch, watch what's going on around them, Reach for toys..etc.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybee* 
Marketing is one of the main reasons buy into the idea that babies need "stuff." My MIL kept trying to push the Baby Einstein DVDs on us when ds1 was a baby. Her argument? "He can see all the colors!" Um, yeah... because we live in a black and white house!









I'm very anti- battery operated, light-up, noisy, so-called "learning" toys. Why anyone thinks a canned digital, horrible rendition of Mozart squealing out of a garishly colored plastic box is somehow "educational" is beyond me.







:

Pretty much how I see it!!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cotopaxi* 
Awesome book:
Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds
Read it if you can - my library has a copy. It makes me really, really mad to see how much money companies get out of parents by making them believe that babies need expensive stuff.

I do not think that babies need DVDs, noisy toys, or anything like that, and I think they do more harm than good in most cases.









:

Quote:

Now, I will say, I DO own some such toys and will watch tv with my now-toddler on occasion. But I use the toys and tv as TOOLS to do something, not because I think it's good for her. I will put on the tv, for example, when I need to give her a nebulizer treatment if her asthma is bad, because it keeps her still. Or I will let her play with her electronic piano if I HAVE to get some computer work done on a deadline. *So I use them for *me* so that I can get what I want accomplished, not because they are essential to her development.*
This makes so much sense to me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sparklefairy* 
"The root of all emotional feeling is in the brain stem. It takes nearly one and a half years for a child to learn how to control her feelings. *How well she does this depends solely on the parents.* "

(bolding mine)

No pressure there!

Actually, temperment has a lot to do with it as well.

Of course. What I found interesting is that moderating emotions is not something you would expect of a child younger than 18 months. I would disagree with the word 'solely', but I think caregivers have some part to play.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot* 
You can still do these things, just not on the large scale our ancestors did!

Again, makes sense to me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
They learned to take turns, help, cooperate, great music, movement activities. They tried things that might have been scary in another situation. Kids who don't have things to climb on got to get some of that monkeyness out of their system for an hour one day a week.

I learned new things too. I still use a lot of what I learned in Gymboree in my daycare.

Anyway, those are really good memories for both of us.

I can see the benefits you are mentioning. And the relationships built are precious and cannot be taken away.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
What I should have said is this is a pre-school. Not my own kids. But, developmentally, being in a walker allows them to be with the kids at circle time, or lunch time. They are part of our group, and they need to be on their level when I can allow it. The walker gives them a special new veiw. The kids love that walker. They like the freedom, they like being able to put their feet on the floor, they jump, they stand, and eventually walk and run in them. (at which point I get tired of having my toes run over and put it away)

Looking at this solely from a developmental needs aspect, I am not sure the pre school programme is addressing children's developmental needs if a walker is required for the child to interact. If a child is developing 'normally', they will sit and stand when they are ready. Obviously the programme has the very best intentions. I would not be comfortable having my child put in a walker for any reason

Quote:

The baby containers are not developmental at all. It's not a "choice" either. I need to put them down sometimes.

I'd love to be able to put a baby on the floor, but I don't feel safe with other kids around. There is a lot of development that goes on, on the floor. That's where babies learn a lot of what they need. They learn to hold their heads up to look around, they do the "airplane" thing, they stretch, watch what's going on around them, Reach for toys..etc.
This again, is not a choice I would make. I do not have other children running around and so for now I do not have this concern. Now that DS is happy to sit or lie on the floor is GREAT for me, especially as he is around 25 lb and he gets heavy! When I have more kids running around and a baby in the house I will have to think of how to address this concern.... I think people have been doing it for centuries without walkers, so it must be possible. I do feel I need to say that the decision you make is your decision and of course you do not need to defend it. I just would not make that same choice


----------



## lovetobemama (May 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
I would not be comfortable having my child put in a walker for any reason.

*Not trying to go off in the wrong direction, so steer me back if this is not where we should be headed, but I just wanted to ask you about the "walker" issue. Especially with your background as an OT. Do you mean you wouldn't want your child in an actual walker with wheels (the con perhaps being something like mobility before the child has developmentally mastered walking) or do you mean any kind of stander/holder like a stander toy or Bumbo seat (the con being something like putting baby in a set position that they can do alone, but might not choose to do for as long as they will if put in a stander and surrounded by toys to keep them busy for a while)?

I will admit that we do have a stander toy that I put Molly in from time to time when I can't wear her well (cooking is pretty much it), but I can't leave her on the floor safely due to big brother being around. Though I will acknowledge that these toys didn't exist for almost the entire rest of history and somehow those moms did just fine







.

Also, one random thought with child development that I often find myself coming to is that, it is a relatively new thing (in terms of all of human kind) that mothers are alone in their "homes" with their babies and young children. We all used to live much more communally...every culture that I have ever studied was, at one time, much more of a "village raising a child" mentality then in our current society, when either one solitary parent is home alone with a child, or a day care, is supposed to provide for the developmental needs of a child. I bring this up, in some ways, with regards to my stander question above. Part of the reason that other mothers of the past didn't need standers is that there were other community members (aunts, sisters, friends) who would be around to help with the children, while the people who cooked were over the fire. I am home alone, and so I must do both the cooking alone, and provide for my children's development alone. So certain things happen...like the stander.

**I think I may have gone too far off on a tangent with all this...sorry!


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovetobemama* 
*Not trying to go off in the wrong direction, so steer me back if this is not where we should be headed, but I just wanted to ask you about the "walker" issue. Especially with your background as an OT. Do you mean you wouldn't want your child in an actual walker with wheels (the con perhaps being something like mobility before the child has developmentally mastered walking) or do you mean any kind of stander/holder like a stander toy or Bumbo seat (the con being something like putting baby in a set position that they can do alone, but might not choose to do for as long as they will if put in a stander and surrounded by toys to keep them busy for a while)?

The walkers that I know are suspended seats in a frame on wheels with a tray area to put toys. So,I am not familiar with what a stander toy or Bumbo seat are.

But, the way I am thinking is that for motor development you see two broad directions of development. From the head down, ie a baby can lift and move / control his head before he can lift his chest, before he can push his torso up off the ground, before he can crawl, followed by walking.
Then you also have development moving from the torso outward. Only with the stability of the torso can you have the controlled mobility of the arms and legs.

So, putting a child in something that supports their torso while they use their legs is a short cut and from what I remember actually delays walking. I have even read of it confusing children as they can't see their feet and miss that it is themselves causing the movement..... I personally just find it unappealing to constrain a child exploring.

BUT, I only have one child and he can be on the floor safely.

Quote:

Also, one random thought with child development that I often find myself coming to is that, it is a relatively new thing (in terms of all of human kind) that mothers are alone in their "homes" with their babies and young children. We all used to live much more communally...every culture that I have ever studied was, at one time, much more of a "village raising a child" mentality then in our current society, when either one solitary parent is home alone with a child, or a day care, is supposed to provide for the developmental needs of a child. I bring this up, in some ways, with regards to my stander question above. Part of the reason that other mothers of the past didn't need standers is that there were other community members (aunts, sisters, friends) who would be around to help with the children, while the people who cooked were over the fire. I am home alone, and so I must do both the cooking alone, and provide for my children's development alone. So certain things happen...like the stander.
Now this is something that I had not thought of. And of course this makes sense. Stander is replacing our extended family - which is a bit of a sad commentary on our society.I would guess that in your situation you are between a rock and a hard place with a toddler and an infant and no human support when getting chores done. I would agree that time in the stander is preferable to be trampled on.

In the USA do people use play pens? Here in Israel it is very popular.... although I am resisting owning one - but I guess only time will tell

Quote:

**I think I may have gone too far off on a tangent with all this...sorry!
Well, I do find this interesting. And it helped me clarify why I wouldn't put DS in a walker. I did not know about standers. I know that in rehab we put people in standers to provide weight bearing through the legs when there are problems with muscle tone or strength. I also have a friend who has a son just over 1 with CP, and they are using a walking frame to help him.... my tangents.
I guess my bottom line is that it is not developmentally appropriate, but modern parenting does require solutions that might not put a child's developmental needs first. (and in NO way am I suggesting you or any other parent are a bad parent for doing this. Again, I think it is a poor reflection of our society that raising a family is such a fraught and close to impossible feat.)

I hope that clarifies and in no way offends. I really would like to keep this discussion going as I always learn so much


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:

Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development

Reflexive Stage (0-2 months) Simple reflex activity such as grasping, sucking.

Primary Circular Reactions (2-4 months) Reflexive behaviors occur in stereotyped repetition such as opening and closing fingers repetitively.

Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months) Repetition of change actions to reproduce interesting consequences such as kicking one's feet to more a mobile suspended over the crib.

Coordination of Secondary Reactions (8-12 months) Responses become coordinated into more complex sequences. Actions take on an "intentional" character such as the infant reaches behind a screen to obtain a hidden object.

Tertiary Circular Reactions (12-18 months) Discovery of new ways to produce the same consequence or obtain the same goal such as the infant may pull a pillow toward him in an attempt to get a toy resting on it.

Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination (18-24 months) Evidence of an internal representational system. Symbolizing the problem-solving sequence before actually responding. Deferred imitation.
I have been thinking about this some more. Before I share my thoughts I am going to say that I have been known to get wild ideas into my head that can be refuted in a milli second. This is not something that I have read anywhere - but an idea I had.

When Piaget gave his stages of cognitive development it gave parents, educators, therapists and whoever was interested, tools to understand what you can expect cognitively from a baby, toddler, child etc.

What I do not understand is why this has been translated into "I have to stimulate my babies cognitive development".

When I look at DS, I see a baby who loves people, shady trees, our dog and cat, anything that is in my hand and he just adores being swung and tickled on his tummy and have raspberries blown at him. He hates being dressed and can zone out in front of a TV screen. What am I trying to say? He seems to need things other than cognitive stimulation.
So, I am wondering if anyone knows anything about stages or development and at different ages/stages different aspects of the person are in the limelight so to speak. Like maybe a babies major developmental needs are making firm and strong connections with the people in his environment (and cognitive development happened parallel, but is not the most important aspect of overall development at this stage.

As I am writing this I remember Erik Erikson and his psychosocial stages of development with Trust versus Distrust being the first conflict (can't remember the word he used). That babies are learning whether their environment is a trustworthy place (ie consistent care and loving responses) or not.

I am just wondering if within the physical, emotional, cognitive and social developmental aspects of the person, you can find elements for each within any activity, with more or less of an emphasis depending on the age of the baby/child.

I think I am loosing even myself here. Essentially I am trying to say that I think babies need to be loved and snuggled and responded to when they are babies. The cognitive development will happen and should not be the most focal issue when choosing how to interact with a baby... I see my MIL having absolutely no trust in her ability to be enough for my DS. She thinks he has to have a stroller, a toy, a pacifier - ANYTHING other than her. And this makes me sad as a) I can't rely on her to look after DS as he is left crying in his stroller or on the floor as this is thought to be fine and b) She really could have such a wonderful relationship with him if she just put all the crap down and sang to him and read to him or somehow interacted with him on a personal level.
And, yet again, she thinks that a mobile cranking out canned music and flashing lights at DS is the preferred option over a warm, loving person. It just seems bizarre to me. But perhaps I am just way way out and missing something.


----------



## cotopaxi (Sep 17, 2007)

Re: walkers/standers - Yes, we do also have playpens in the U.S. I preferred them when I needed to put dd in a safe place since at least she's not in an unnatural position... however, sometimes she would fuss in there vs. in the stander (like a walker, just stationary, and usually with lots of toys to play with) with all the entertaining toys, so that was something I used. Usually about 10 minutes every other day, while I showered if DH was unavailable to watch her, from about 5-8 months.


----------



## ASusan (Jun 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
When Piaget gave his stages of cognitive development it gave parents, educators, therapists and whoever was interested, tools to understand what you can expect cognitively from a baby, toddler, child etc.

What I do not understand is why this has been translated into "I have to stimulate my babies cognitive development".

Piaget couldn't understand it either. Whenever he lectured American audiences, parents would ask about how they could stimulate their child to speed up the stages for their child. He got asked this question so often that he called it "the American question."

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/elkind.htm


----------



## lovetobemama (May 16, 2007)

I see...and I am TOTALLY with you on the walker thing. And as far as your observation that the use of the stander is really just a sad commentary on where we are in society right now...ITA!!! If I wasn't home alone in this house all day (we get out all the time, actually, but it is still just me with the 2 LO's) DD would never be in the stander, she would be held by some other loving person, or playing with things that she can manipluate herself.

I think part of the main issue here is the idea of 1. "teaching" your baby as if there are developmental lessons they must somehow be taught because they otherwise might not learn them, and 2. the idea of "toys" being distinct items soley for playing and learning.

Both of these issues are ones that I largely reject, BTW.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Two books that haven't been mentioned that you would probably find a good read:

What's going on in there? How the Mind and Brain Develop in the First Five Years by Lise Eliot

Building Healthy Minds: The Six Experiences That Create Intelligence and Emotional Growth in Babies and Young Children by Greenspan et al.

The first is a very brain oriented book, the second focused on emotional development and stages of emotional development. They're a nice complement to the Piagetian view of things. Piaget focused very much on cognitive development, and so there's a lot of social development left out. And his work is nearly 100 years old, so we know a LOT more about the brain.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
this does NOT work for all, many left brain children only need to see a "flashcard" once, and the use of cards works for them.

Note, however, that the point of "Einstein Never Used Flashcards" is actually much less about flashcards and more of an indictment of the whole "educational" toy market. Their whole point is that the natural world is provides a ton of stimulation, and that the everyday activities that you do provide many, many natural learning opportunities.

Because many everyday activities are by their nature repetitive (how many times a week do you make meals, do laundry, turn off light switches, pick up toys...?), there can be learning through repetition in daily life too. If your kids learn from flashcards, great! But you don't NEED to buy flashcards. And alas, many parents are marketed into flashcards because they think that their kids need flashcards to "get ahead".

Reading adds a whole new level of complexity too. Dd (who is 4) is desperate to be just like her older brother (7) and do "homework". I bought her a workbook to do while he does his homework. It was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do. We were printing off tons of on-line cr*p.

Uh-oh, said dd has just woken, not good. I'll be back to talk more about toys...


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Back to toys..

As for toys, I'm very much "everything in moderation" kind of person. In fact, my kids favorite toys are: Bruder Trucks and Playmobil. Neither are wood. But, my kids _love_ the detail and their ability to reenact the life that they see around them.

Ds is an intensely detail oriented child. Wood garbage trucks/fire trucks/buses don't have the same play value for him because they lack the realistic detail that he NEEDS. The Bruder trucks (and his Playmobil bus) fill that need for him.

Dd loves the size and details with the Playmobil people. She's very much into scripting conversations/activities for the people. She could do that with cloth/wood dolls that she has, but she chooses the playmobil people over and over again.

*The one thing that both of these kinds of toys have in common is that they are OPEN-ENDED.* I think that toys that allow for open-ended play are essential for child development. Wood toys, by their very nature, tend to allow that more. But plastic toys can too. The question my mother always asked about toys was: What will the child do with it? If it only has one "purpose", it's probably a bad toy, no matter what it's made of.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noordinaryspider* 
My healthy, happy, friendly, social seven month old is essentially toy-free and his development does not seem to be impaired by the fact that he plays with people instead of inanimate objects.

But, how much of this is temperament? His stage of development?

We have a very reserved child who needs (a) to observe a lot and (b) to act out (using toys and props) what he has experienced. This helps him make sense of the world. He also uses toys to break the ice in terms of playing with other children. He was an OBJECT-FOCUSED child. I didn't raise him in an environment where I kept pushing objects on him. It's what HE sought out.

We have another very social child who would probably be fine without any/many toys. And yet, her toys also help her make sense of the world. She uses them to set up social situations and to try out, in the privacy of her own imaginative world, different responses to social situations she's encountering in her own life.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noordinaryspider* 
My older children were raised with more of society's norm of "educational"
TV, always discontent and nagging for new plastic toys, hopelessly cluttered house, Christmas a nightmare of bickering, pettiness, and power trips among the adults in their lives and all that other crap most people who will read this haven't lived through yet.

You know, it's possible to have Christmas without that. Maybe it's because we only have 2. Maybe it's because we focus on the religious aspect in addition to the gifts. But mostly, I think it's because the adults in their lives are kind, caring and respectful. Not ONE of their relatives has ever brought up the "good kids get presents" stuff or used Christmas as a power trip. Christmas is a time for sharing gifts and TIME with those you love. (And that's the sentiment among the whole extended family, not just our nuclear family.)

OK and finally, TV:
Both of my kids are highly imaginative kids. They rarely lack for things to do/play. (And when they do, it's usually a sign they are tired.) They also watch a limited amount of TV and play some computer games. Again, this is an "everything in moderation" kind of stance. They watch PBS/Noggin, not because it's educational, but because it's content I feel comfortable with.

I sometimes like to veg out in front of a screen, why shouldn't my kids be able to do the same when they're old enough (i.e. over 2)?


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ASusan* 
Piaget couldn't understand it either. Whenever he lectured American audiences, parents would ask about how they could stimulate their child to speed up the stages for their child. He got asked this question so often that he called it "the American question."

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/elkind.htm

Well, I am getting better at looking up links - and I loved this link! I am quoting a bit of it here.

Quote:

Researchers, however, were reluctant to leave it at that. They undertook a whole series of investigations to determine whether a child's progress through the Piagetian stages could be accelerated by training. By and large the results were negative. In general, the effects of training vary with the child's developmental level. Although training has some positive effects at all age levels, older children make more progress with considerably less training than younger children. Most children who are living in a "normal expectable environment" receive sufficient stimulation to realize their intellectual potential.
But the whole article is wonderful, about meeting a child's individual developmental needs (here I would go on to say that only a parent/caregiver who is observing their child carefully would know what the developmental need is - definitely not a toy manufacturer. Although to be fair, a parent chooses which toy to introduce when).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovetobemama* 
I see...and I am TOTALLY with you on the walker thing. And as far as your observation that the use of the stander is really just a sad commentary on where we are in society right now...ITA!!! If I wasn't home alone in this house all day (we get out all the time, actually, but it is still just me with the 2 LO's) DD would never be in the stander, she would be held by some other loving person, or playing with things that she can manipluate herself.

I think part of the main issue here is the idea of 1. "teaching" your baby as if there are developmental lessons they must somehow be taught because they otherwise might not learn them, and 2. the idea of "toys" being distinct items soley for playing and learning.

Both of these issues are ones that I largely reject, BTW.

I am glad I am making sense to someone other than myself and I totally agree with the two issues that you highlighted..... now I just need to go and lobby and lobby and lobby to get mums the help they need - the social structures they need! Although that will happen a bit later in my life


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Sorry this going to be a non sequitur as I haven't fully read the thread







.

Maybe someone has mentioned this, but orangutan babies stay in close physical contact with their mothers for 8 _years_. I don't see how an orangutan could possibly need more than a human baby! Like modern human society, orangutans' social structure is a small family unit, not a larger village like society. Anyway, just an interesting tidbit that seemed relevant.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

I haven't read all the posts yet - but I just had to respond as a mother of a child with dyspraxia (motor planning issues) (and other issues like APD, etc).

Ya know, everytime I read the "TV harms their brains" or "too much stimulation is bad" I cringe....because I feel like part of the feeling here is a scare tactic. That parents are afraid that their child will have "problems" so if only they do this or that prescription, their child won't "get" whatever the syndrome is. And there is also an implication that if a child DOES have that condition, well obviously the parent did something wrong in how they raised them.

This goes completely contrary to my experience as the mom of a SN child (and one NT child). Kids come prewired, as far as I can tell. If they're going to have problems, they're going to have problems. I guess extreme neglect or abuse can affect an otherwise NT child - but in general, I think that it is the case that different environments for children merely support or make obvious the problems that might be there.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the "worry" over toys that are too stimulating or the worry that a child who sees TV or that a kid isn't outside enough are, in general, red herrings that are just touted by some of these experts as "guarantees" that your child won't have problems....and that's just not true. So make those choices based on your personal beliefs and what works for your family but try to avoid the "my child is okay because I did X and yours is not because you did Y" out of it.

Sorry I'm just a bit sensitive because I so often hear the idea that ADHD, autism and other disorders are caused by bad parenting and it's just NOT TRUE.

hth decrease your level of "worry" about these issues.....
peace,
robyn


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

No, of course those things are not from "bad parenting"...

But there is new research out there. I mean, a generation ago, doctors were telling their patients that bottle feeding was better for babies and formula was healthier than breast milk, no one thought of skin cancer and sunscreen so no one wore it, it was just dawning on people about environmental toxins- mercury, PCBs, fire-retardants, etc. that might be bad for your health should be cut out of products, recycling didn't exist... The list goes on...

What I'm saying is that I think that we should take seriously the new evidence that these things could be harmful to children- TV, our general cultural tendancy toward "overstimulation", our shift indoors. How and what they actually do to them (and to what degree, and what other factors play into it) is not yet known, and that is the bottom line of it. It's not meant to scare, guilt, accuse or any of that. But it is meant to inform and I think people should take notice. Just the same thing we say to mothers who formula feed, circ, etc. here- if you know better, you try to do better. Is TV bad? Yeah. How bad? I don't really know and neither does anyone else. But intuition now backed up by research says that it is not good, so I need to account for that in my parenting and do the best I can.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
I haven't read all the posts yet - but I just had to respond as a mother of a child with dyspraxia (motor planning issues) (and other issues like APD, etc).

Ya know, everytime I read the "TV harms their brains" or "too much stimulation is bad" I cringe....because I feel like part of the feeling here is a scare tactic. That parents are afraid that their child will have "problems" so if only they do this or that prescription, their child won't "get" whatever the syndrome is. And there is also an implication that if a child DOES have that condition, well obviously the parent did something wrong in how they raised them.

That is tough! My DS is still very little, but I would be very angry if someone told me that it is because of my bad parenting that my child is having a difficult time. I have had people tell me that I am delaying DS's development as he is on me too much and not on the floor enough - and that pissed me off big time! But, while I am not sure that TV itself harms brains - I am pretty convinced that watching TV replaces other activities that are required for healthy development.... I do think there is something to questioning whether all the educational (or not)TV that is offered is not perhaps doing more harm than good. However, this is my personal stance and of course each parent has to make their own informed decision. Also I will add, that it is seductive to think you are protecting your child from all sorts of problems when making our choices as parents..... but as you said, some kids just come wired differently and there is nothing you can do about that.

Quote:

This goes completely contrary to my experience as the mom of a SN child (and one NT child). Kids come prewired, as far as I can tell. If they're going to have problems, they're going to have problems. I guess extreme neglect or abuse can affect an otherwise NT child - but in general, I think that it is the case that different environments for children merely support or make obvious the problems that might be there.
I used to think that ADHD was a urban phenomenon and had closet thoughts about this being a disorder that is over diagnosed and an "illness of our modern lifestyle". I worked in a rural African community and saw 2 children who would have been diagnosed ADHD. They lived without electricity or any modern convenience.... so that blew my theory out of the water, and since then I am much more cautious about generalizations.
However, I do think that there are choices a parent can make that support child development, and choices that do not.... not as a guarantee for anything - like having a perfect child or something like that.... but choices that will support a child whoever they are and whatever their needs are.

Quote:

So I guess what I'm saying is that the "worry" over toys that are too stimulating or the worry that a child who sees TV or that a kid isn't outside enough are, in general, red herrings that are just touted by some of these experts as "guarantees" that your child won't have problems....and that's just not true. So make those choices based on your personal beliefs and what works for your family but try to avoid the "my child is okay because I did X and yours is not because you did Y" out of it.
Firstly, I would not accept any parent telling me that I screwed up before they knew just what they are talking about or based on some theory of theirs.
There are no guarantees, but from what I see around me and what I hear from therapists treating children, there are things which are better to include and other things that are preferable to exclude when raising young children.... for myself I am not trying to avoid having to face the situation of my DS having a hard time and being diagnosed with some sort of problem. I am wanting to enjoy my journey as a parent and I see too many obstacles in the modern culture around me. But,as I have mentioned before I am very idealistic and do have an inherent belief that things need to change in how we as a society view childhood....
Most of my friends with babies and young children adore their kids, but do not really enjoy just being with them - there is so much pressure to be stimulating them and giving them opportunities and the joy of being a parent and a child seems to get lost. I might have this very wrong. But I love just being with my DS and not worrying about whether I am holding him too much or not enough or whether I should feed him now or later or how much or even what. I, for the most part, just enjoy being mum to my DS (other than when he is whining and will not sleep unless my nipple is in his mouth and wakes up as soon as I take the nipple out and and and and! But my general experience is one of joy and wonder). I think what I am trying to say is there is far too much pressure on parents and children and we could all have a much better time if we stopped trying to be perfect.

Quote:

Sorry I'm just a bit sensitive because I so often hear the idea that ADHD, autism and other disorders are caused by bad parenting and it's just NOT TRUE.

hth decrease your level of "worry" about these issues.....
peace,
robyn
You are right! This is a huge hurdle that we as a society are having to get over. Understanding just what these disorders are. From when I studied until now there is also such a huge shift in understanding.... I think this is positive.

In brief, I leant about 1 -2 months after DS was born that there are no guarantees. I fell in love with AP and thought I had the answer to all my questions - until I started to worry about how much I was holding DS and feeling guilty if his needs were not met instantly 100% of the time. What would this mean when he became an adult and how could I be so cruel and I am messing up his chances at a secure attachment, etc, etc, etc. So I chilled out and am now really just going with what feels right, and I am enjoying being a parent so much more.







:

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Great discussion! I'm amazed that it's gone on so long with nobody mentioning _The Continuum Concept_. This is a book about some of the things you're talking about--learning from being with adults in their everyday life. It is NOT a parenting manual, and it makes some unwarranted leaps of logic, but it is a VERY interesting book.

Here are a couple of my articles that you might find relevant:
http://blog.earthlingshandbook.org/2...lly-do-it.aspx
http://blog.earthlingshandbook.org/2...r-madness.aspx

About walkers: I used one quite a bit when I was one year old. I have a slight bone malformation in one hip joint; I have a low aptitude for learning muscle skills; I have a timid and cautious temperament. Some combination of those factors led to my learning to walk very late. I could not balance well and was very upset by falling, so for many months I cruised along the furniture and rarely would try to stand independently. My parents found that in the walker, I could get around very well (because of the supported balance) and this made me happier and more confident about my ability to move on my own. It also got me to practice a wider variety of foot movements, strengthening my ankles so that eventually I was able to balance better and walk. I think it served a sort of PT function for me. My overall opinion of walkers is positive, aside from the obvious safety hazard if there's any sort of ledge the child can roll off of.

But I never got a walker for my son, nor did we have any kind of "stander" toy, although he did use one at the sitter's sometimes. It was obvious in his first week of life that he'd inherited his father's physical coordination, not mine; he's always had an easy time figuring out how to make his body do things (within the limits of his development) and his balance is astounding! He didn't need a special tool to help him practice, and in fact getting used to extra support might have been detrimental.

So I think it's a matter of keenly observing the individual child and discerning his/her needs. Because of EnviroKid's aptitude, we were able to have him sleep in a regular bed from birth (he easily learned not to fall out), to have no gate on the stairs (he didn't attempt to go up or down until he had a good sense of how to do it), etc. Other kids don't have that combination of coordination and caution, so they need more safety devices and more direct instruction.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alexsam* 
usly the new evidence that these things could be harmful to children- TV, our general cultural tendancy toward "overstimulation", our shift indoors. How and what they actually do to them (and to what degree, and what other factors play into it) is not yet known, and that is the bottom line of it.

But the reality is also that we're raising children who will live in our technological society, not in a stone age culture. If they are raised without the sorts of fine motor skills that we take for granted and which are essential to our way of life (like the wrist motion involved in using a screw driver), they will be disadvantaged. A friend of mine was doing a project trying to help a really primitive tribe become responsible for the upkeep of donated resources and they had a real problem with screwdrivers. it's virtually impossible to teach an adult who's never tried it to use a screwdriver.

Of course, you don't need to go and buy things which guarantee to stimulate their mind in five different ways (vomit), but exploring textures, stacking things, sorting things, undoing things, facilitating imaginative play, etc, etc. They are skills that you need as an adult.


----------



## LadyCatherine185 (Aug 12, 2008)

THANK YOU THANK YOU! for this post! I have always hated flashy, noisy, (TACKY!!) baby toys.. and have returned MANY toys that we got as gifts at my baby shower! it is good to hear that based on real research my intuitions about them were right! I feel like babies and children should have toys that allow them to be creative, not toys that just flash in front of them. I can't remember how many times my mom told me that we would play with the BOXES more than the toys most Christmases when we were little! I also have a theory that the 'epidemic' of ADD/ADHD in kids is due to the overstimulation and constant entertainment by these types of toys (also, I think that it is overdiagnosed).. but that's just a personal opinion/theory.. I will be interested to read more posts and do some more research on this topic (my DS is only 3 weeks old, so not really interested in toys just yet..).


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
Great discussion! I'm amazed that it's gone on so long with nobody mentioning _The Continuum Concept_. This is a book about some of the things you're talking about--learning from being with adults in their everyday life. It is NOT a parenting manual, and it makes some unwarranted leaps of logic, but it is a VERY interesting book.

I haven't read this book, but heard about it in connection to AP (I live in Israel where English books are a bit thin on the ground - so I keep Amazon as busy as I can). I'll see if I can track it down.

Quote:

Here are a couple of my articles that you might find relevant:
http://blog.earthlingshandbook.org/2...lly-do-it.aspx
http://blog.earthlingshandbook.org/2...r-madness.aspx
I will get around to reading these.

About the walker issue - I get the impression these are a very important part of the American parenting experience. It sounds like you did have PT/OT like intervention in your childhood. For me anyway, this thread is not about bashing anyone's decisions or experiences.It is about understanding why I am making the choices that I am.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
But the reality is also that we're raising children who will live in our technological society, not in a stone age culture. If they are raised without the sorts of fine motor skills that we take for granted and which are essential to our way of life (like the wrist motion involved in using a screw driver), they will be disadvantaged. A friend of mine was doing a project trying to help a really primitive tribe become responsible for the upkeep of donated resources and they had a real problem with screwdrivers. it's virtually impossible to teach an adult who's never tried it to use a screwdriver.

Of course you are right about our world being a technological world and the culture at large is a technological / consumerist culture. So it is understandable that parents would be concerned that by creating some sort of bubble of non reality they will be disadvantaging their children.
I do not see it quite like that. I think that technology has it's place (I love my computer). However, I learnt to use a computer when I was in my late teens. And I learnt the skills to use it for personal use and at work without any course and without ever having seen one until I was about 12 when they were brought into the South African market.
My point? I am not sure that children benefit from all our technology in the same way that we as adults do. In fact I am finding more and more information that suggests their exposure to screen time is actually detrimental to healthy development. This is not an easy idea for parents to consider as it requires a fundamental change in our parenting.

Essentially I think we do not need to be scared of technology, but we do need to think about when is it a good time to introduce it into our children's lives. And of course every family will be different and will have different issues at stake. A severely disabled child who can only communicate through a computer is obviously better off with a computer than without one.

I am a little bemused by the screwdriver story. I would have loved to have been there and seen just what was going on. I have worked with tribal people in Africa and in my experience it was not the screw driver that was the issue, but that the technology was not something that was treasured or understood to be helpful - ie cultural issues were the problem, not motor skills. (We assume that clean drinking water is what deprived people are dreaming of - but they are not. They have not been educated to know that clean drinking water has health benefits, and to their experience it was just an intrusion in their lives. We who have been educated to know that clean water saves lives are dumbfounded when this is not received with the same enthusiasm that it is given - sorry, I was just a bit offended when I read that these people couldn't manage the maintenance of their equipment as they cannot handle a screw driver. It seemed a bit too simplistic)

Quote:

Of course, you don't need to go and buy things which guarantee to stimulate their mind in five different ways (vomit), but exploring textures, stacking things, sorting things, undoing things, facilitating imaginative play, etc, etc. They are skills that you need as an adult.
Agreed!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyCatherine185* 
THANK YOU THANK YOU! for this post! I have always hated flashy, noisy, (TACKY!!) baby toys.. and have returned MANY toys that we got as gifts at my baby shower! it is good to hear that based on real research my intuitions about them were right! I feel like babies and children should have toys that allow them to be creative, not toys that just flash in front of them. *I can't remember how many times my mom told me that we would play with the BOXES more than the toys most Christmases when we were little!*









:

Quote:

I also have a theory that the 'epidemic' of ADD/ADHD in kids is due to the overstimulation and constant entertainment by these types of toys (also, I think that it is overdiagnosed).. but that's just a personal opinion/theory.. I will be interested to read more posts and do some more research on this topic (my DS is only 3 weeks old, so not really interested in toys just yet..).
I am cautious to have these kinds of theories. I do think there is a very broad phenomenon of our children being overstimulated and kinda bouncing off the walls as a result of this. I am not comfortable with ascribing this to any one child. If I were to treat a child (for the record I am an OT, but most of my working experience is in Hand Rehab _ orthopeadics and burns - although I am thinking a shift to paeds might be in order) I might suggest trying to change the child's environment. It would not harm and it might help. Of course it might not help, but it would be a good starting point. The 2 children I saw who lived totally rural lives without any toys as we know them and with no electricity, obviously needed something else other than a modified environment. It was actually very sad to see, as the one little girl was literally ruled with a stick. Her mum could only manage her under threat of beating - which was just awful for me to witness. I tried to explain that this was very wrong, but I didn't have any other options to offer the mum with a psychiatrist only coming to this rural hospital once every two months by aeroplane - and medication might not have been the best option anyway. But it was very hard to see. This also did change my mind on medication. I used to think that Ritalin was to be avoided at all costs, but after seeing this child I was not sure that I could justify daily beatings over Ritalin. And I could see that the mum was in desperate need of help.... but I digress.

My DH is aware of me pouring my heart out in this thread and keeps saying that I should not be too militant in my approach. He grew up with one TV and one computer for each person in the house and finds my ideas a bit 'out there'. Although he does see that treating children like little adults is not a good idea, and I am not being superior about this, just trying to figure out what is best for our family.


----------



## LadyCatherine185 (Aug 12, 2008)

i guess i shouldve clarified a little more what i meant on the add theory.. i knowthere are definitely children out there who really have this *disorder* (is that the right word?) just because their brains are wired that way. I have a brother who fits this (and possibly a few other things, but he has never been tested/evaluated). I just meant that for those kids who, are just that, KIDS, of course they are going to have a hard time paying attention in school (what kid likes school anyway?) when all of their previous childhood has been spent with flashy, noisy toys in front of them. What teacher or textbook can compete with that? I just feel a lot of times it is overdiagnosed, and that those types of entertainment as a baby/toddler/small child overstimulates and causes children to have "ADD." I feel like I am rambling.. lol.. but basically, yes I agree that ADD/ADHD exists as a real disorder and that no matter what, some children will develop it. I also believe that overstimulation with the wrong things can "*cause*" some children to develop ADD and those are usually the overdiagnosed ones... again just a theory!!


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

things which guarantee to stimulate their mind in five different ways (vomit)








For a moment there, I thought you meant vomit stimulates the mind in five different ways, and I was thinking, "I don't care if it's stimulating; I'm not going to let my kid play with vomit!"









Quote:

About the walker issue - I get the impression these are a very important part of the American parenting experience. It sounds like you did have PT/OT like intervention in your childhood.
Walkers were popular in the USA from about the 1950s to 1980s. They are out of favor now because of the horrible injuries that can result if a baby falls down a staircase in one. You rarely see them in stores now. But similar non-wheeled "activity centers" are fairly popular, and I think those deserve skepticism about whether they enrich babies in some way or are just a convenient way to keep babies occupied.

I did not have any professional intervention until I was 6 years old and my mother realized I still wasn't able to run without wobbling. It's from my parents' descriptions of my behavior before, with, and after the walker that I think it had a beneficial effect.

Anyway, my point was that some things can be very helpful tools for children with developmental problems, but it doesn't follow that these tools will help normal children develop faster or better. Many parents and marketers seem to draw that conclusion.

I agree that excessive screentime is a bad idea, particularly for very young children. There's lots of research to back this up! Another excellent book (as long as you're placing an order!







) is _The Plug-In Drug_ by Marie Winn. This is what my partner and I decided:
1. No screentime at all until 2 years old.
2. Limit screentime to <1 hour a day average, 2 hours a day maximum.
3. All screentime must be accompanied by a parent until at least 6 years old. (Maybe older; we'll see when we get there!) This means we are supervising the content, we know just what he saw and can talk about it afterward, and it helps us to keep Rule 2 because we don't have time for more TV/video than that ourselves, and we can't "park" the kid in front of it!
We have bent each of these rules every once in a while, but in general we stick to them, and we feel they've been very beneficial.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyCatherine185* 
i guess i shouldve clarified a little more what i meant on the add theory..

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh









Quote:

i knowthere are definitely children out there who really have this *disorder* (is that the right word?) just because their brains are wired that way. I have a brother who fits this (and possibly a few other things, but he has never been tested/evaluated).
I think disorder is a word commonly used.

Quote:

I just meant that for those kids who, are just that, KIDS, of course they are going to have a hard time paying attention in school (what kid likes school anyway?) when all of their previous childhood has been spent with flashy, noisy toys in front of them. What teacher or textbook can compete with that?
I think you raise a very important point here! Children have become accustomed to being entertained, and this is very difficult to cope with as a parent and a teacher. Trying to catch their attention and keep things fun and entertaining. (not that children should not be having fun, but I am thinking there is a difference between doing fun stuff like exploring life and doing fun stuff like watching TV - or watching a car/train go around and around in circles)

Quote:

I just feel a lot of times it is overdiagnosed, and that those types of entertainment as a baby/toddler/small child overstimulates and causes children to have "ADD."
Yes, this is a similar thought to one that I have been having. That the way we bring babies and toddlers up today in Western Culture is kinda overstimulating and resulting in highly strung little people who just need some down time and a relaxing space to be in. Hence my agitation when I see *newborns* surrounded by cloth books full of colour and vivid patterns - my first reaction is "poor baby - give the poor child a chance to quietly 'arrive' and make sense of this new world. Why surround a newborn with things to stimulate their cognitive development? What is the rush???"

Quote:

I feel like I am rambling.. lol.. but basically, yes I agree that ADD/ADHD exists as a real disorder and that no matter what, some children will develop it. I also believe that overstimulation with the wrong things can "*cause*" some children to develop ADD and those are usually the overdiagnosed ones... again just a theory!!
Like I said before - I am sure there are children who would benefit from having their environment toned tone a LOT! And then there are those who would not be harmed by that, but would still need more than that! So, I guess essentially we agree









Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 







For a moment there, I thought you meant vomit stimulates the mind in five different ways, and I was thinking, "I don't care if it's stimulating; I'm not going to let my kid play with vomit!"

















:

Quote:

Walkers were popular in the USA from about the 1950s to 1980s. They are out of favor now because of the horrible injuries that can result if a baby falls down a staircase in one. You rarely see them in stores now. But similar non-wheeled "activity centers" are fairly popular, and I think those deserve skepticism about whether they enrich babies in some way or are just a convenient way to keep babies occupied.
Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

I did not have any professional intervention until I was 6 years old and my mother realized I still wasn't able to run without wobbling. It's from my parents' descriptions of my behavior before, with, and after the walker that I think it had a beneficial effect.










Quote:

Anyway, my point was that some things can be very helpful tools for children with developmental problems, but it doesn't follow that these tools will help normal children develop faster or better. Many parents and marketers seem to draw that conclusion.
I was somehow wanting to say this, but I did not want to offend you. I do think equipment has a VERY important role to play for children with disabilities or developmental difficulties. And I do see the weird 'jump' happening that because this equipment helps children who need help, it's good at speeding things up for children developing 'normally'. Which I just fail to understand. Just to emphasize my point. A child with CP who is unable to stand can have a VAST improvement made in is/her life by being put in a stander. At an age where their peers are running around it can make a huge difference to be at standing hight for some activities instead of in a wheelchair and thus always shorter by a lot.

Quote:

I agree that excessive screentime is a bad idea, particularly for very young children. There's lots of research to back this up! Another excellent book (as long as you're placing an order!







) is _The Plug-In Drug_ by Marie Winn. This is what my partner and I decided:
1. No screentime at all until 2 years old.
2. Limit screentime to <1 hour a day average, 2 hours a day maximum.
3. All screentime must be accompanied by a parent until at least 6 years old. (Maybe older; we'll see when we get there!) This means we are supervising the content, we know just what he saw and can talk about it afterward, and it helps us to keep Rule 2 because we don't have time for more TV/video than that ourselves, and we can't "park" the kid in front of it!
We have bent each of these rules every once in a while, but in general we stick to them, and we feel they've been very beneficial.
Luckily I already have this book (phew!) and I love it. I grew up without TV until I was an adolescent and I would like to do the same in my family. I really do not know how this will be possible - but I'll cross that bridge when we get there! But I do like reading about how other families address these issue! Thank you


----------



## ASusan (Jun 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 

Quote:

I just meant that for those kids who, are just that, KIDS, of course they are going to have a hard time paying attention in school (what kid likes school anyway?) when all of their previous childhood has been spent with flashy, noisy toys in front of them. What teacher or textbook can compete with that?
I think you raise a very important point here! Children have become accustomed to being entertained, and this is very difficult to cope with as a parent and a teacher. Trying to catch their attention and keep things fun and entertaining. (not that children should not be having fun, but I am thinking there is a difference between doing fun stuff like exploring life and doing fun stuff like watching TV - or watching a car/train go around and around in circles)



The need to be entertained by educators extends to today's traditional-aged college students. Students evaluate their professors at the end of each semester on the degree to which their professor "had enthusiasm for the course material" or "stimulated my interest in the subject matter" or (worst of all) "kept my attention."

Yes, professors should do these things, but as a part of the _intellectual endeavor_, not, as I think students today have come to expect, to be entertaining.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LadyCatherine185* 
I just feel a lot of times it is overdiagnosed, and that those types of entertainment as a baby/toddler/small child overstimulates and causes children to have "ADD." I [snip] I also believe that overstimulation with the wrong things can "*cause*" some children to develop ADD and those are usually the overdiagnosed ones... again just a theory!!

Well I REALLY disagree with this idea.

I just don't think it has to do with flashy toys. I don't think you would get a child diagnosed with ADD/ADHD just because they got bored easily - that's not what ADHD IS anyway...ADHD in particular has to to with HYPER-awareness of your environment and sometimes (often) includes focus on one activity with the inability to focus on anything else (like what a teacher wants you to focus on). My DD is constantly scanning her environment and seems more aware of all the many things going on that most of us can tune out with no problem. If you had all that sensory information coming in without a good filter for it, you'd have attention issues too. How is that caused by flashy toys?

I also think (and other parents of ADD/ADHD kids have said something similar) that the correlation between ADD/ADHD and TV watching is not causal. And indeed most studies just note a correlation between the two, not a causal link. I think that the reason ADHD kids prefer to watch more television and are more likely to watch "hours" of it (assuming their parents are allowing it) is because of the way their brains are wired. I have one ADHD kid and one NT kid. My ADHD kid can just really veg if I let her (part of her hyper focusing). My NT child will watch for a while but then get bored and need to walk away. It just seems innate to me. There have been one or two interesting studies along these lines - I can try to dig them up again if you'.re interested. Obviously as the mom of an ADHD kid I've read several of the studies (rather than media reports about them which usually miss very subtle points these scientist are making).

See the reason why *I* think that ADD/ADHD is an "epidemic" (if indeed it actually is - I don't know the data so I couldn't say) is because of the VERY different expectations we have for children these days, especially in schools. Have you seen what kinds of behavior are expected by kindergarteners? I'm guessing that in the past, children probably started formal schooling later in life (6 or 7) and some of the behaviors were outgrown. I was specifically told that my child could not be "officially" diagnosed with ADD/ADHD until after age 7 because so many kids outgrow these behaviors. I think that teachers today are on the "lookout" for "problem behaviors" thus encouraging the diagnosis of kids who are on the cusp who otherwise might developmentally outgrow ADD/ADHD type behaviors.

Teachers may also have had the attitude in those old days "well kids will be kids" and sort of expect inattention and so on in their classroom (wasn't there also alot of rule by fear and intimidation in many classrooms? that may have cut down on the acting out part I guess). And kids who couldn't function well in class (by paying attention or whatever) may have just been given the lablel "dunce" or slow or something.

And I think that many people who grew up with the dunce label might have grown up to say "hey wait, I'm not stupid - I just think differently than you do" or "hey if I have a large coffee I notice I can think ALOT better - what's that all about"? Those people probably are better able to advocate for their children and with more understanding about ADD/ADHD, they are able to go back to teachers and say "my kid isn't slow, he/she has a condition that needs to be accomodated in order for them to learn better."

So I have a very different experience and "feeling" about the causes of the ADHD "epidemic" (if there is one, which I'm not sure about) as the parent of a child who is "at-risk" for ADHD (she's only 5 yet so too soon to officially diagnose but every teacher she's ever had has really struggled with her attention issues - so we're assuming based on her assessment that's what she's got).

So I hope you will reconsider your view after reading this and maybe finding out a little more about what ADD/ADHD actually IS.

peace,
robyn


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ASusan* 
The need to be entertained by educators extends to today's traditional-aged college students. Students evaluate their professors at the end of each semester on the degree to which their professor "had enthusiasm for the course material" or "stimulated my interest in the subject matter" or (worst of all) "kept my attention."

Yes, professors should do these things, but as a part of the _intellectual endeavor_, not, as I think students today have come to expect, to be entertaining.

This reminds me of an approach I saw at university where classes were evaluated on their 'fun - ness' and lecturers who were more academically vigorous and less inclined to get the lecture hall humming with appreciation were not at all popular. Again, to be fair, there were very good and entertaining lecturers and very poor and boring lecturers. But I see your point, which is rather scary - for me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
Well I REALLY disagree with this idea.

I just don't think it has to do with flashy toys. I don't think you would get a child diagnosed with ADD/ADHD just because they got bored easily - that's not what ADHD IS anyway..

I think you are making a very important point and I would just like to clarify something. If you do not feel comfortable sharing your personal story, that is fine of course.
Do you think that too many toys and an overstimulating environment make no difference to a child, whether they are NT or not? (I have to quickly say that until not long ago I was not familiar with the concept NT - and now I know of it in connection to the Spectrum) For me this is highly theoretical, but also comes from observation around me -
a child overwhelmed by toys and in general overwhelmed by life and expectations, can become a child who is 'highly strung'. I have said this before. I think that much of the way little children spend their time (occupation) does not support their healthy development...

Quote:

ADHD in particular has to to with HYPER-awareness of your environment and sometimes (often) includes focus on one activity with the inability to focus on anything else (like what a teacher wants you to focus on). My DD is constantly scanning her environment and seems more aware of all the many things going on that most of us can tune out with no problem. If you had all that sensory information coming in without a good filter for it, you'd have attention issues too. How is that caused by flashy toys?
Not being able to regulate your sensory perceptions is something that I think is part being wired that way, and part not having the opportunity to engage in activities that stimulate the integration and organization of sensory experience. It would obviously be too simplistic to say that flashy toys are the sole reason why a child has these problems. But, to my way of thinking, this does not mean that they are a good idea - or that they should be endorsed as a necessary part of childhood.

Quote:

I also think (and other parents of ADD/ADHD kids have said something similar) that the correlation between ADD/ADHD and TV watching is not causal. And indeed most studies just note a correlation between the two, not a causal link.
It's been some years since I was reading up on paediatric journals. While I am not convinced that TV watching per say CAUSES anything (from dyspraxia to ADD/ADHD), I am guessing that the activity of watching TV is replacing other activities that are essential to normal development. So in effect it could be said that TV caused these problems - but really it is that TV deprived a child of what they actually needed for healthy development. I heard trough a friend about a recent study that found that there was a direct correlation between dyspraxia and TV watching and the treatment of choice being SI (sensory integration). This was a rather profound thing for me to hear - and I suspect we will be hearing more and more about this.

Quote:


I think that the reason ADHD kids prefer to watch more television and are more likely to watch "hours" of it (assuming their parents are allowing it) is because of the way their brains are wired. I have one ADHD kid and one NT kid. My ADHD kid can just really veg if I let her (part of her hyper focusing). My NT child will watch for a while but then get bored and need to walk away. It just seems innate to me. There have been one or two interesting studies along these lines - I can try to dig them up again if you'.re interested. Obviously as the mom of an ADHD kid I've read several of the studies (rather than media reports about them which usually miss very subtle points these scientist are making).
Perhaps we are talking about the same thing? I think I agree with different brains being wired differently. However, I would be very concerned about a child vegging out in front of the TV - even if this is an experience they seek out. It's almost as if this child needs even more help to do the things that can actually help - get up and MOVE in an unstructured free way (although I am still thinking about this)

Quote:

See the reason why *I* think that ADD/ADHD is an "epidemic" (if indeed it actually is - I don't know the data so I couldn't say) *is because of the VERY different expectations we have for children these days*, especially in schools.
YES!

Quote:

H*ave you seen what kinds of behavior are expected by kindergarteners?* I'm guessing that in the past, children probably started formal schooling later in life (6 or 7) and some of the behaviors were outgrown.
A bit - and it does not look right!

I

Quote:

was specifically told that my child could not be "officially" diagnosed with ADD/ADHD until after age 7 because so many kids outgrow these behaviors. I think that teachers today are on the "lookout" for "problem behaviors" thus encouraging the diagnosis of kids who are on the cusp who otherwise might developmentally outgrow ADD/ADHD type behaviors.
Interesting.

Quote:



Teachers may also have had the attitude in those old days "well kids will be kids" and sort of expect inattention and so on in their classroom (wasn't there also alot of rule by fear and intimidation in many classrooms? that may have cut down on the acting out part I guess). And kids who couldn't function well in class (by paying attention or whatever) may have just been given the lablel "dunce" or slow or something.
Yup

Quote:

And I think that many people who grew up with the dunce label might have grown up to say "hey wait, I'm not stupid - I just think differently than you do" or "hey if I have a large coffee I notice I can think ALOT better - what's that all about"? Those people probably are better able to advocate for their children and with more understanding about ADD/ADHD, they are able to go back to teachers and say "my kid isn't slow, he/she has a condition that needs to be accomodated in order for them to learn better"
This is a good thing obviously.

Quote:

So I have a very different experience and "feeling" about the causes of the ADHD "epidemic" (if there is one, which I'm not sure about) as the parent of a child who is "at-risk" for ADHD (she's only 5 yet so too soon to officially diagnose but every teacher she's ever had has really struggled with her attention issues - so we're assuming based on her assessment that's what she's got).
This is so hard. To be touched by this so personally. When I opened this thread, I wanted to share and develop my thoughts about 0-6 year developmental needs and how perhaps we are not meeting them with 'Tiny Love" "Taf Toys" "Tiny Tykes" "Baby Einstein", etc. That perhaps these toys/programmes/DVD's are not helping, and possibly even creating problems. I do not want anyone who has shared here to feel like they have to defend themselves or their decisions. However, I really do appreciate people sharing. So, Thank you.

Quote:

So I hope you will reconsider your view after reading this and maybe finding out a little more about what ADD/ADHD actually IS.

peace,
robyn
Amen.


----------



## hsofia (Sep 9, 2008)

To the OP, one book I'd recommend (if no one else here has; I haven't read all the comments) is Lise Eliot's *What's Going On In There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life*. She addresses a lot of the trends, but breaks down what is really happening in the brains of babies and small children at different stages of development.


----------



## I-AM-Mother (Aug 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
I have no idea where to post this... thought I would try here.

Basically I find that I am coming into conflict with most people around me on how to raise a child.... when it comes to babywearing, BFing, cosleeping, organic food, toys in moderation etc etc etc. Nothing new here, I guess most mamas on this board are in this situation in one way or another.

What I am trying to figure out is what ARE the developmental needs of our babies and young children.

My gut tells me that by incorporating my child into my life and letting him learn about my life, with my life objects in a way that he is not 'entertained', but rather left to explore, I will be meeting DS's developmental needs in a healthy way. Something seems very wrong to me about having babies and toddlers surrounded by bright noise and visual clutter without any 'down time'....

Also, DS is developing just fine, why would I want to 'stimulate' him with toys that 'teach' him? Surely he learns as much by sucking on, and playing with, a wooden spoon (I am talking about a 6 month old) as he does by garishly coloured expensive toys that have been marketed to parents as essential to development.

I am also thinking that it might not just be not necessary, but also perhaps over stimulating.... and therefore not actually that beneficial.... perhaps even a strain on the nervous system? (EEEK, I know this is not going to be a popular idea)

These thoughts come out of my conviction that TV is not a good idea for little children. This was confirmed for me when I heard of a study that links dypraxia (poor motor planning) with screen time - and the treatment??? PLAY! Outside, on swings and slides and see saws etc. Good old-fashioned stuff is actually just what our little children need. But now we pay lots of money to a professional to play with our children.

So, I am looking for two things:

1. Someone to contradict what I am thinking - get my brain cells moving

2. People who might have something to add. Here I am looking for links as well.

An idea that I am playing with is that the brain of an infant, a toddler, a young child and a school going child are all very different brains. With different needs, and different parts developing... ie initially the brain stem is the level that the brain of an infant is working on - ie all the reflexes.
Then the brain development moves up into the limbic area (with the reflexes integrated) and only when the child is older does the cortex actually start to develop. Kinda in line with Piaget's theory on cognitive development (the very little that I know).
I do know that perceptual development follows a progression from kinaesthetic experience, to a 3D, and then 2D, ie the child needs to move inside, on top, behind etc before he plays with blocks to learn about perceptual concepts and then finally it can happen on a page.

So, anyone out there thinking about this? Thought about this? Studied this?

This is a wonderful topic. I could go on and on about this topic but I'll be quick.

You ask

Quote:

*what ARE the developmental needs of our babies and young children.*
I won't go into many details but there is a lot of evidence and studies that suggest the best way to rear up a child is to adopt a kind of non-industrial parenting philosophy. In fact, this has been debated for years by different people. For the most part it is either dismissed as a form of nonsense or it resonates very well with the reader and they make some changes to the way they do things in their homes. I personally think there is a lot of truth to some of the books. Others do tend to over do it. However, I have a feeling that within the next 20-30 years there will be more people drawn to this kind of non-industrial living/parenting because I am beginning to hear more parents discuss the effects of raising "IPOD" children.

So...we'll see.


----------



## jennifer_lc1 (Sep 8, 2007)

i don't have much to add, i'm a new mom to a 2 month old baby boy







:, but this is a great thread with a lot of good ideas/thoughts.

i do know that i will def. be an 'explore the world' mama, touch/taste/smell/hear are so important and with a variety of things, everyday objects to nature outside.

i will also have toys for him, too. the right kind of toy. blocks full of shapes/colors/textures, train tracks.. things to build and really interact with.

hes a baby right now and his stimulation comes from us mostly. he does enjoy a few of the squeeky/crunchy in spots/different fabrics/stick up soft toys you hang from the play gym.. but i don'y rely on those for his growth. i talk to him like i would talk to an adult (i am guilty of the VERY occasional baby voice w/ him), i describe things to him, show him stuff.. its great b/c you can see in his eyes that he is just soaking it up.

the problem with most of the toys for the 0-3 kids is i think alot of parents use them as a babysitter to take time away from their LO, and while i def. understand the needs of that.. at least in the first few years we should be the stimulation in their little brains.

good thread though


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

As I read this thread I wonder if Steiner Education would be your kind of thing.
It incorporates a lot of what you talk about.

Steiner schooling is based on the idea that children learn best at a pace that is dictated by their natural understandings and development and not by being pushed to accelerate.
Technology is kept to a minimum in the younger years, though included in late highschool.
Steiner isn't concerned with having students "increase their cognitive understanding" at a rapid pace either - which suits how you feel. Students dont learn to read until 7 or so. Instead understanding one's culture and environment are deemed more important as a child.

*Steiner Developmental Theory*

The structure of the education follows Steiner's pedagogical model of child development,[20] which views childhood as divided overall into seven-year developmental stages, each having its own learning requirements;[21] the stages are similar to those described by Piaget.[22] The approach has been termed "the most complete articulation of an evolutionary developmental K-12 curriculum and creative teaching methodology".[23]

According to Waldorf pedagogy:

Early childhood learning is largely experiential, imitative and sensory-based.[24] The education emphasizes learning through practical activities.[25]
Elementary school years (age 7-14), learning is regarded as artistic and imaginative. In these years, the approach emphasizes developing children's "feeling life" and artistic expression.[26][21]
During adolescence, to meet the developing capacity for abstract thought and conceptual judgment[25] the emphasis is on developing intellectual understanding and ethical thinking, including taking social responsibility.[21]
This theory of child development is founded in turn upon the Anthroposophical view of the human being.

Steiner learning in infancy believes that children should learn by imitating their mother in the first 2 yrs or so, just by being with her a child learns all they need to know at that stage.


----------



## _betsy_ (Jun 29, 2004)

Haven't read all the posts, but I was intrigued by (and kept bookmarked) this article from NPR Old Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skill which touches on a lot of what is being discussed here.


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

I just did a search and there are some Steiner schools in Israel (p.100)

Here's two with links

Harduf Waldorf School
http://www.harduf.org.il

Ramat ha Sharon
www.urimschool.org

If you have one in your area you should check them out and see if they have any playgroups to socialise with







They'd also have heaps of info on child & infant development to check out


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hsofia* 
To the OP, one book I'd recommend (if no one else here has; I haven't read all the comments) is Lise Eliot's *What's Going On In There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life*. She addresses a lot of the trends, but breaks down what is really happening in the brains of babies and small children at different stages of development.

I checked this out on Amazon and it looks FANTASTIC! Reading over the chapters and intro - I might just have to go ahead and order









Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
This is a wonderful topic. I could go on and on about this topic but I'll be quick.

However, I have a feeling that within the next 20-30 years there will be more people drawn to this kind of non-industrial living/parenting because I am beginning to hear more parents discuss the effects of raising "IPOD" children.

So...we'll see.

I totally agree!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennifer_lc1* 
i don't have much to add, i'm a new mom to a 2 month old baby boy







:, but this is a great thread with a lot of good ideas/thoughts.

Congratulations!









Quote:

*the problem with most of the toys for the 0-3 kids is i think alot of parents use them as a babysitter to take time away from their LO*, and while i def. understand the needs of that.. at least in the first few years we should be the stimulation in their little brains.

good thread though








Yup, we covered this earlier with these toys and TV serving a purpose for the parent, but not being the best option for the child - being the better of two options when it comes to being a mum alone at home with more than one child.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
As I read this thread I wonder if Steiner Education would be your kind of thing.
It incorporates a lot of what you talk about

.
Well, this is quite funny. I was educated in a Waldorf school...

Quote:

Steiner schooling is based on the idea that children learn best at a pace that is dictated by their natural understandings and development and not by being pushed to accelerate.
Technology is kept to a minimum in the younger years, though included in late highschool.
Steiner isn't concerned with having students "increase their cognitive understanding" at a rapid pace either - which suits how you feel. Students dont learn to read until 7 or so. Instead understanding one's culture and environment are deemed more important as a child.
I actually started a whole thread on just this topic - well part of it anyway. I agree with a lot of the essential elements in child development, but am a bit concerned by how it is brought to realization.... I guess I am saying there is a lot of potential for me to disagree with teachers in Waldorf Schools - but I suspect I will not agree with most teachers in ANY school....
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=944853
Basically this thread goes into the pros and cons of Waldorf education

Quote:


Originally Posted by *_betsy_* 
Haven't read all the posts, but I was intrigued by (and kept bookmarked) this article from NPR Old Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skill which touches on a lot of what is being discussed here.

Will get around to reading this link.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
I just did a search and there are some Steiner schools in Israel (p.100)

Here's two with links

Harduf Waldorf School
http://www.harduf.org.il

Ramat ha Sharon
www.urimschool.org

If you have one in your area you should check them out and see if they have any playgroups to socialise with







They'd also have heaps of info on child & infant development to check out

Thanks!









I actually checked this out. I was rather disappointed. Not by either of these two schools, but by a school closer to where I live that had a parent body that were a little too 'wafty' for me. If I could find a Waldorf school with a very down to earth approach I would be happy - and so far the only one I know of in Israel is in Jerusalem.

But it is funny that you thought of Waldorf in connection to what I have been writing.... I guess I do believe a lot of what is proposed and am fascinated to be finding modern science backing this up (while in the schools themselves there often is not much awareness of this)... but this is a huge topic in and of itself.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

OK, got into the old fashioned play skills and I love it!









Here are a few bits:

Quote:

"It's interesting to me that when we talk about play today, the first thing that comes to mind are toys," says Chudacoff. "Whereas when I would think of play in the 19th century, I would think of activity rather than an object."

Quote:

It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline.

Quote:

"Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago," Bodrova explains. "So the results were very sad."

Quote:

Despite the evidence of the benefits of imaginative play, however, even in the context of preschool young children's play is in decline. According to Yale psychological researcher Dorothy Singer, teachers and school administrators just don't see the value.

Quote:

It seems that in the rush to give children every advantage - to protect them, to stimulate them, to enrich them - our culture has unwittingly compromised one of the activities that helped children most. All that wasted time was not such a waste after all.
I basically could have cut and copied the whole article. It is fascinating reading for me... but perhaps I need to think more critically about it? It just kinda makes sense to me.
I really recommend reading the whole article


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 

I think you are making a very important point and I would just like to clarify something. If you do not feel comfortable sharing your personal story, that is fine of course.
Do you think that too many toys and an overstimulating environment make no difference to a child, whether they are NT or not? (I have to quickly say that until not long ago I was not familiar with the concept NT - and now I know of it in connection to the Spectrum) For me this is highly theoretical, but also comes from observation around me -
a child overwhelmed by toys and in general overwhelmed by life and expectations, can become a child who is 'highly strung'. I have said this before. I think that much of the way little children spend their time (occupation) does not support their healthy development...

Okay sorry I'm just getting back online and wanted to respond to your thoughtful response...

I've been thinking about it alot offline. And I think what maybe we're really talking about is something more like "developing concentration" or something like that. I definitely think that toys with an "instantaneous" payoff (bells, whistles whatever) or that "do too much" for you probably do NOT foster development of concentration. I can definitely see where the ability to concentrate on a task that takes a while to pay off is something that has fallen by the wayside in many childhood experiences (and maybe in our society overall).

I think that if you have an NT (neurotypical) child who watches lots of TV, has video games, has toys that whir and flash at the touch of a button and so on you are giving that child experiences that are based on almost instant rewards. I can see how a child might choose the train with the bells on it over a simple wooden train where they have to supply their OWN noises. In some sense they are being "deprived" of the opportunity to develop patience and concentration. Now there are probably plenty of kids who have all the flashy toys etc who are ALSO encouraged to develop concentration - either through the arts, music, sports, reading, whatever. And of course kids who never had all the flashy toys probably have a HIGHLY developed sense of concentration because that's the enviornment in which they were raised and that skill has developed further. But I'm sure there are many who just don't get as much exposure to those opportunities. So when they hit a school environment, they expect to be "entertained" because they are looking for the instant payoff.

I don't hear anyone really talking about or extolling the virtues of patience much anymore (weren't schools known for being hard work back in the day and there was NO instant reward expected?). Instead, it seems like schools are trying to make themselves more "instant reward" kinds of places. And the idea that kids can't concentrate has more to do with the fact that it has never been properly cultivated in them....

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that none of this really seems like it causes ADD/ADHD to me. ADD/ADHD is something else entirely as far as I can tell. It has to do with the quality of a childs concentration but it is more of a disorder of a jumbled hierarchy of what to pay attention to first in one's environment. Whereas the NT kids we're talking about have more of just an underdeveloped ability to concentrate on ANYTHING that doesn't have an immediate payoff or attention-getting response. They may fully understand that they are supposed to do the boring math problem, but they just don't see the reward. But an ADD/ADHD kid may become distracted by the feel of their pencil or a stray mark on the ceiling or something and just kind of "forget" that the math problem is even in front of them.

(Of course it occurs to me that our society deals with ADD in an instant reward type fashion because we'd rather medicate it than help these kids develop their concentration skills to the best of their ability or to find methods to cope with their unusual way of "paying attention" to their environment. And one could very well argue that by having an environment free of the flashy toys, you have a better chance of having these kids focus on the more important parts of their environment. Of course just a picture with many colors or even a stray mark on the wall is enough to distract my child from the task at hand LOL She'd have to be in a VERY boring environment to help her focus her attention. Anyway that's an aside I guess.)

Anyway, it's an interesting question overall and one I think worth thinking about.

peace,
robyn


----------



## Just1More (Jun 19, 2008)

We also don't buy the flashy stuff, and only have a few things (that mostly live in the kitchen cabinet and the kids have forgotten them) that other people have given us. I, too, don't see the value in a garbled voice teaching my children the alphabet. I pull them out for "me" time as well...but only when I'm really desperate. I'm much more likely to pull out my hair curlers and turn them loose, or to dump the silverware drawer on the floor for exploration.

My children are allowed to play with everything. I don't take small/dangerous things out of the baby's hands. I just stay RIGHT there. (okay, they don't play with containers of bleach, or...). But, ds (who is 1) has played with a knife. I stay with them and explain the different parts. If he finds something tiny on the floor, I don't take it away. I explore it with him until he's done with it. (or if he insists on carrying it around, I just watch him until he puts it down.) Our kids have free reign of my husband's woodworking shop...dd rides her tricycle around his work bench, and ds carries around dowel rods, tape measures, screwdrivers, etc. They push the buttons on the alarm clock, the flush the potty over and over, they dump the clothes out of the laundry basket (and then I take them for a ride). If one of them takes a fancy to "go exploring", I follow them, pointing things out along the way. Sometimes I stay back just enough to prevent them from knowing I am there...just to let them feel free and unencumbered.

That said, including brightly colored infant toys, of which we have a small collection, I try to get as much into their hands as possible. Let them fully explore anything they desire. Shiny bright rattle, daddy's watch, mama's necklace, shoe laces, anything. I make it a point to sort things on the floor in front of them...money, buttons, my ribbon box, electronic stuff (phone cords, batteries, extension cords, computer parts, etc.). They can learn so fast...I think this is the time to show them all I possibly can...and not limit them to "things for children". My children expect to be with me, and they expect to be free to do what I am doing and to learn about it in their own way at their own pace. I hand them all sorts of stuff, but if they put it down without even looking at it...fine. Maybe I'll give them the same thing next week.

I agree with the idea that children need routine and repitition, but I believe that they largely supply that for themselves. Sure, mealtimes, bedtimes, and a rough outline of our day follows the same pattern, and they DO love to know what comes next. But I think the important part is knowing your child, and in what sort of environment they do best. DD was very flexible, and as long as I gave her a bit of warning was very happy to do whatever, whenever. DS needs it pretty much the same or we deal with lots of meltdowns. That doesn't mean the same exact thing everyday, but it does mean he needs to be in bed by 8p.

DH and I have discussed that until about age 5 or 6, we are defining what our children view as "normal." Children playing in the other room out of touch with adults with flashy fake things is NOT normal. (Please understand, that I, too, think moderation is key. These parenting styles are not mutally exclusive). I'm not raising my children to be children...I'm raising them to be adults. So, I have no desire to create a preschool subculture. They are just part of my life, and when they are grown, will continue to live their own lives. Sure, I add lots of interesting bits to their day...they have a lot to see and encounter, having never had these opportunities before...but I do reject greatly the idea of socializing and herding children.

I have no studies to back up where I stand, but feel that I have a ton of antedoctal evidence to support my plan to continue as I am. As opposed to their playmates (not all...but all of those who don't parent the way we do), our children are FAR ahead developmentally...physically, emotionally, mentally, and yes, even socially. They don't neccessarily play well with other children, but they can converse beautifully with an adult. And if the other children are willing to move out of their "dora brain" and really play, my kids can do that, too. And we've not forced them one bit. We sing, we play, we explore, and they are thriving. I come from a large family, and one that follows these same philosophies, and the bit I was reading from a pp about how 5 year olds in our culture barely measure up to 3yo 60 years ago I think is probably very accurate. In our family, 3 is the big year. Across the board, with rare exception and with no pushing on the part of the grown-ups, kids in our family figure out how to read, ride a bike, tie their shoes, do simple math (maybe even some multiplication and division), make a swing go, etc at 3 years old. Things that children typically learn in kindergarten. Note I said "figure out", not "are taught". We make casual observations that let the children put it together on their own. Like, see, I read "too", because when two o's are side by side they say "ooooo". Look at that tree over there...I think maple trees are so pretty. See how this one has 5 parts on it's leaves? We're just talking, thinking, and noticing out loud. Our children do the same thing. People are always floored what dd knows, but really, I spent very little time "teaching", and a lot of time "exposing" and "including" and answering HER questions about things she's seen. Just last night she said (after several days of going down the street to watch some constuction), "Mama, when you swim your hand does the same thing a backhoe does when it scoops. Except a backhoe is in the middle. See, I can be a backhoe!" And she proceeded to demonstrate. That was with no prompting from me, except our daily trip to watch the backhoes this week and last.

I don't value, by the way, early learning for the sake of early learning. And I don't think that it makes better, smarter adults, per se. BUT...I do think that the opportunity to learn so easily, naturally, and quickly gives children a self-confidence that struggling to learn through artifical means can never do. My kids EXPECT that they CAN figure things out. They know they just have to look at it a little longer, twist this piece, ask someone a few questions. And they are not stuck "inside the box". So, I know that when they are doing advanced math later and have to struggle through a book...they'll be confident that they CAN do it...they are smart, they are strong, etc. I've given them the chance to prove themselves to themselves.

So, what do small children NEED developmentally? They need to be shown everything real they possibly can. They need to be gently guided and exposed to things they didn't know existed, and then be free to explore them at their own pace and in their own way. They need someone to sit beside them on the swing outside and comment on every passing car (blue truck, gold car, oooo...look! a fire truck!), etc, and to share the excitement and thrill of an exploration and an adventure. They need plenty of things they can touch and explore (and even break). But flashy toys and tv and preschool programs and socialization with other children in a school setting (or even playgroup)...absolutely not.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Okay this is totally off topic but your posting reminded me of a study I read about Japanese versus American mothers....the American moms tended to point out THINGS in the environment (look a mail truck!) while Japanese moms tended to focus on the relationship between people (what do we say to the mailman?)...just thought it was interesting and your post made me think of it.
peace,
robyn


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *hippymomma69*
> ...


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

So, I went ahead and ordered "What's going on in there?" by Lise Eliot and also got "Your growing child's mind" by Jane Healy. Just very briefly, the Healy book is totally brilliant and I am liking the Eliot book too.

So much of what I have been thinking and theorizing about seems to be confirmed in the Healy book from how the brain develops to how to stimulate the brain. Just wonderful. I wish this was more common knowledge.

I need to sit down and read the book thoroughly, but for now, I am loving the reptilian brain, the mammalian brain and the human brain.... oh and just about every page has something I think is beautiful.

Anyway, Fisher Price and Taf Toys etc are more often than not missing the boat I would guess. (Although MIL, who LOVES all things plastic and educational and electronic etc etc etc, did find an open ended plastic Fisher Price toy after much searching)








:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:


----------



## Bekka (Nov 20, 2001)

I am interested in this thread, and it's fun to read all the POVs as I have a 10 yo, 8 yo, 4 yo and 2 yo. Very fascinating to watch their development.

Someone mentioned "playing with boxes" at Christmas, but I want to add my list of "toys" that dd1 especially loved, but everyone did between 5 mos and 2 years:

plastic jars with lids
egg cartons, cardboard and/or plastic
plastic easter eggs
small food boxes (pasta, cereal, etc.)
small individual cups (yogurt, applesauce)
water bottles
juice bottles
a "bean box" (like a sand box, but with beans) (for older than a 1 yo)
Paper towels
foil
wax paper

There's more, but that's what I can think of right now. Babies and toddlers are so fascinating ...


----------



## ABmom (Mar 6, 2008)

:


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bekka* 
I am interested in this thread, and it's fun to read all the POVs as I have a 10 yo, 8 yo, 4 yo and 2 yo. Very fascinating to watch their development.

Someone mentioned "playing with boxes" at Christmas, but I want to add my list of "toys" that dd1 especially loved, but everyone did between 5 mos and 2 years:

plastic jars with lids
egg cartons, cardboard and/or plastic
plastic easter eggs
small food boxes (pasta, cereal, etc.)
small individual cups (yogurt, applesauce)
water bottles
juice bottles
a "bean box" (like a sand box, but with beans) (for older than a 1 yo)
Paper towels
foil
wax paper

There's more, but that's what I can think of right now. Babies and toddlers are so fascinating ...

WONDERFUL!

Getting into the Healy book a bit more, I am finding that there are things I do not totally agree with, but most of what she writes and concludes is very refreshing.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the 'American Question' put to Piaget on speeding cognitive development up. In Healy's book she adds that he said it's not about how fast you can grow intelligence, but how far. I like that.....

And also she addresses motivation to learn, and how this has to do with the limbic system (emotions) and even the cerebellum (so keep those young kids moving!) And how by being a responsive parent to your infant you are already building a positive learning experience... and she touches on attention, being able to channel out 'distractions' by choosing what to focus on..... Gosh, it is a lot! And it is very inspiring to take on the responsibility of creating an environment that will foster positive learning.

I think I could pretty much quote most of the book..... but I am known for getting carried away with myself when I get excited...







:


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I used to play with "garbage" too. One of my favorite childhood toys was a gigantic audio mixer (box with lots of knobs) that my dad brought home because somebody was throwing it away; it was my spaceship control panel, etc.







So I've let my child adopt many discarded and everyday items as toys. It's good for the imagination.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

I can't help myself - but I am really loving both books!

Healy writes about attention being so wrapped up with motivation and the emotions - it is so complicated and beautiful to think how the brain works. Her ideas about people with attention problems being wired differently are interesting - that the brain is responding differently, but they do not know if it is genetic or environmental. Anyone have any links on this?
But she also says that even with a genetic tendency to attention problems, the structured environment can be very helpful and assist in modifying attention problems.... and fostering self regulation

She also writes a lot about motivation..... anyway, I should stop gushing.

Lise Eliot also writes very convincingly about why a natural vaginal birth is in the mother and babies best interest. Again, wonderful reading how it all works so beautifully if give the chance.


----------

