Sunday, June 13, 2010

Our Trip

I will just warn now that this is long...read on at your own risk.

In 2008 we made the lengthy drive down the AlCan (Alaska-Canada Highway) by way of a few national parks (both Canadian and US) to visit family in the lower 48. We were gone for 6 weeks and spent a small fortune.
In 2009 we used airmiles to fly to Utah and stayed with family for 9 weeks, but took a couple of shorter camping/canoeing trips, and spent a small fortune on those things plus fixing up our house down there.
This year we decided that--in spite of two grandmas who really want to meet our newest family member--we should choose the modest option and just take a short in-state trip. With our job (or lack thereof) in mind, we really wanted to keep costs down, but still wanted to have a good trip (we needed to get our minds off things). We thought we could take the budget route on most things (short trip, camping, lots of PB&J for lunches) and thereby make a couple of splurges (such as the bus in Denali). In spite of living in Alaska for 3 years, we had not yet seen the interior of the state, so we sat down with maps and destination wish lists and planned a 12 day road trip.

Things we had planned:
  • 12 days
  • Visit Denali National Park
  • (in Denali) Hubby and Wolf take the spendy all-day bus into the interior of the park (with the good views of the mountain)
  • (in Denali) The little ones and I go see the sled doggies (they do winter patrols via dogsled, and in the summer you can see/meet/play with the dogs)
  • Visit Dawson City (center of the Alaskan gold rush)
  • Spend a day or so seeing what there is to see in Fairbanks
  • Visit North Pole (which, incidentally, is south of Fairbanks...)
  • Drive north of Fairbanks and cross the Arctic Circle
  • See the midnight sun
  • In Coldfoot (the city north of the circle) visit the visitor's center for Gates of the Arctic National Park (the park itself is a massive wild place, accessible by plane or for backcountry hiking/cross-country skiing, but not a great place to go with kids)
As we prepared for our trip, I remembered that Dawson City is in Canada. We have our passports and the kids' birth certificates, so the border crossing isn't a problem...except that I knew we would have our dog with us, and to take a dog across the border one has to have a health certificate for the dog (they are only good for 60 days and cost $60!). We decided that for one day across the border, the paperwork wasn't worth it, (deep breath) and concluded that we would add Dawson to the itinerary some other year when we drive the AlCan again.
OK, so now our trip was at 10 days, no Dawson City...but we still had a lot of exciting things planned.
We had planned to leave in the middle of the month, but for assorted reasons decided to move the trip up a bit, so it ended up being the last minute when we got online to make our camping/bus reservations in Denali. The website was down, and the phones were busy, so we wrote down the number and figured to call from the road. Therefore we were a day into our trip (one day out from our intended arrival at Denali) when we learned that the bus we intended to take would not be running for another week. OK, deep breath, we can handle this. We just flipped our itinerary around backwards and moved Denali to the end of our trip rather than the beginning. Reservations made, and we took the other road and headed out of Anchorage the other direction. So far so good.

The first couple of days were fine. The afternoon that we'd planned to camp near Fairbanks though turned out to be very rainy. We decided to stay that one night in a hotel, and (since we wouldn't have to strike camp) we'd head out early to go for the Circle. So much for budget...but it's just one night, and we all got showers... deep breath ok, it's ok.
In the morning we headed out (not nearly as early as we'd wanted too) and started north on the Dalton Highway.There are about 200 miles between Fairbanks and Coldfoot, and about 60 of it is dirt road. There are roadsigns and guidebook notations recommending carrying two spare tires, extra gasoline, etc because there is literally nothing out there. (The road continues past Coldfoot for another few hundred miles of dirt all the way to Prudoe Bay, but we had no desire to go that far.) We figured that with a full take of gas and our standard one spare tire we'd be ok because we were not driving the whole road, just the first little bit up to Coldfoot. Imagine then our concern when we stopped at an overlook for lunch (about 150 miles in, most of the way through the dirt part) and then as we pulled out the van made a funny noise. At first I wondered if a pebble had gotten thrown up into something under the car because sometimes it would clank and then sometimes it wouldn't, however it was a loud noise and as I slowly drove across the pullout (with Hubby outside looking at the car to see if he could see/hear anything more) we both had the feeling that we were not going to cross the Arctic Circle on this trip.
deep breath
We turned around and went back to Fairbanks; a whole day in the car, and we ended up right where we started, without having really seen anything. On the way back the "check engine" light came on, we checked under the hood (topped off the oil) and determined to take the van in to be looked at in Fairbanks. We guessed it was probably no big deal, but better safe than sorry, right?
Strike the Arctic Circle and Coldfoot and the Gates of the Arctic Visitor's Center. Sad, frustrating, disappointing, but at least we still had Denali to look forward to.
We found a campsite right in Fairbanks. The campsites were decent, there were flush toilets and free showers. The jets from the airport flew over us periodically, and the fighters (and who knows what all else) from the air force base flew over us often. The boys loved looking up at the planes and trying to identify them. I wished they were not quite so loud...but hey, it was entertainment, and it was looking like we'd be in town for a few days.
The next morning we took the van into a shop. They plugged it in and the computer told them that it was a transmission problem (our van is 4 years old with only 37,000 miles on it, so this was shocking). They didn't do transmissions though, so they sent us to a place that did. We went to that place and they noted the make of our car and said "you know there's a kia dealership in town?" We didn't know. It was a new dealership, and we'd never been to Fairbanks anyway, but our van is under warranty so we went over there. They told us that we needed a whole new transmission. (I guess they're faulty on this model?!) It was going to take two days to get the transmission in, and then another full day (12 hours of work) to install the thing.
So one day in Fairbanks became four. deep breath Wow, this trip just isn't what we planned at all. No Dawson. No Circle. But we still had Denali. And in the meantime, I was able to meet a couple of online friends who live in Fairbanks, and one invited me to come to her house to do our laundry so I didn't have to spend an afternoon in a laundromat. We visited LARS (University of Alaska Fairbanks' Large Animal Research Station) with musk oxen and caribou. We visited North Pole and the Santa Claus house, and saw the reindeer there. We spent a day at Pioneer Park playing on playgrounds, eating greek food, playing putt-putt golf, and sending Bear on his first carousel ride. We went to the local fudge shop and tried cranberry and blueberry fudge (YUM). The transmission was supposed to arrive on day 3 (with installation planned for day 4) but on the morning of day 3 as we tried to pull out of the campground the van didn't want to drop into gear, so we emptied out everything, left it all in the campsite, and drove straight to the dealership. We'd hoped they would give us a rental vehicle, but they didn't have any, so we had to find our own (though they did take us over to get it). More money. deep breath They said it was helpful to have the van a day early though because they could get everything dismantled that day, and it would be ready to start installing the transmission first thing on day 4. We hoped that might mean we would be able to leave town midday on day 4--and get right on down to Denali.
As you may have noticed, we fixated on Denali as a great equalizer. We'd had so many hopes dashed on this trip, but Denali was one of the things we'd been most excited about, and we still had our reservations, and we were still going to make it there. The van wasn't finished until 5pm on that 4th day, but we were so ready to leave Fairbanks that we packed up and left town anyway. Fortunately Denali's campground check-in is open until 11pm (it's still as light as 5 at that time) and we rolled in at 10:54. No joke. We checked in and set up camp and finally tucked in around midnight.
In the morning, we awoke to rain. Lots of rain. Not a downpour exactly, but enough to get ya pretty wet if you went out for more than a few minutes, enough to have the tent very wet, enough to chill us...and enough that the clouds were thick and low and we couldn't see the mountain at all. We checked weather reports and they indicated that the clouds and rain were to be expected for the entire coming week. Unfortunately we were at less than 24 hours from the bus departure time, so no refunds. We talked it over and decided to give up and leave. We didn't want to spend three days camping in the rain if we weren't even going to be able to see the mountain that we had come to see. So I inquired about getting a refund for our other nights of camping...check in/out time was 11am, since it was already 12:30, sorry, I was too late, we couldn't get a refund for that night. We also could not get a refund for the next night because of their 24hour notice policy. We spent one night there but between all the un-refunded things we paid more than that hotel in Fairbanks had cost, and we got rained on. We didn't even stick around an extra hour to see the sled dogs because it was a 10 hour drive home.
deep breath

I've had disappointments before, but this trip really does beat all. I don't think I've ever been so glad to get home from a trip, or wished so much that we'd just never gone at all.
I understand why Denali has their stringent refund policy--Alaskan weather is finicky and they would lose a lot of money if they gave refunds easily. In the future I will not make reservations in advance. I'll plan to arrive mid-week when they're not crowded, and I will watch the weather forecast and not even go if it doesn't look clear. The campground was actually pretty nice, I just was too worn out to be willing to camp there in the rain.

In spite of all the things we didn't do, there were memorable things that we did do, and some of them were good.
Things we actually did:
  • Visit Denali National Park (but not see the mountain)
  • Hubby and Wolf take the spendy all-day bus into the interior of the park
  • The little ones and I go see the sled doggies
  • Visit Dawson City (center of the Alaskan gold rush)
  • Spend a day or so seeing what there is to see in Fairbanks
  • Visit North Pole and the Santa Claus House and reindeer
  • Drive north of Fairbanks (lotta good that did us) and cross the Arctic Circle
  • See the midnight sun (In Fairbanks it didn't matter if I looked up at the tent ceiling at 8pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, or 9am--it all looked about the same. This makes it very hard to get kids to sleep. It also gave me a remarkable (and sometimes frustrating) sense of timelessness.
  • Visitor's center for Gates of the Arctic National Park
  • Acquired two new national parks magnets for the fridge (Denali NP and Wrangell-St Elias NP)
  • Eagle cut his first two teeth
  • We met a French couple who camped next to us in Fairbanks--they had a tandem bicycle and had taken an entire year off work and were going to bike from the Arctic Circle all the say down the west coast to Chile and the Antarctic Circle. Whoa!!
  • Bear's first carousel ride
  • Wolf learned to split firewood and kindling and build/light a fire
By the way, it's sunny and gorgeous here at home.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Gentle Discipline: Laying It Out

Recently I discovered Baby Dust Diaries by way of her gentle discipline carnival (she found one of my posts, and left me a comment to let me know that she had linked me). She has lots of links there, numerous posts of her own, plus she does the GD carnivals monthly now.
I especially liked her post Getting it Wrong: What Gentle Discipline is Not, and I hope she doesn't mind but I wanted to share a short excerpt of my favorite part (it's really worth going over to read the whole thing, but this chart is awesome!)

Below is one of my favorite charts showing parenting styles. I like it because, unlike most quadrant-based charts on parenting styles this skews it on its side so you can see the continuum of effectiveness down the left side and because it shows the shaded blending of the styles. What she is describing is called permissive parenting typified by low levels of expectation and high levels of nurturing responsivness. As you can see in the chart, permissive parenting rates quite low on the effectiveness scale (only slightly higher than being completely disengaged). Authoritarian parenting, where punishment falls, actually has high levels of expectation in common with gentle (nurturing in the chart) parenting.
Gentle parents, like authoritarian parents, care a great deal about the behavior and discipline4 of their children. And, as you can see from the chart authoritarian parenting actually has a high level of effectiveness (as measured by child behavior) as it scales with the level of responsiveness/nurturing.
Gentle parents are no more permissive than Authoritarian parents are uninvolved. To assume so ignores the intention and creates an inflammatory divide. I don’t assume you beat your kids. Don’t assume I let mine run wild.

I admit to having been guilty of exactly that last sentiment--I was raised in a household that was more on the authoritarian side. We were extremely well-behaved kids by most folks' standards, and since the end result was good I assumed that the method must be good as well.
Then I met my Wolf.
Nothing I had been raised with worked with him. He was his own kid and frequently could not be convinced or even coerced into things he didn't want to do--not by anything or anyone. Punishment had little or no effect on his behavior. Attempts at force were usually ineffective. I had to learn something new, and gentle discipline is where I have ended up.
In my younger years when I saw a kid who was out of control, I thought "well if only his mom would set boundaries, or give him a good lecture, or a swat on his naughty little behind..." Over time (due to living with Wolf, reading many books, and talking with other parents) my perspective has shifted.
I am not by any means a perfect "gentle parent." I've used spankings and time outs, I've yelled and threatened and completely lost my temper. Over a year ago I wrote a post on spanking and said I planned to never do it again...um, strike. However I am trying. I think I am improving. For every time I fall down, I get up again--and in my opinion that's the real measure of a good parent (or a good person)--no matter how often they make mistakes, they keep trying again to be better next time. I continue to read and ponder and try to develop my sense of what I want my parenting to be like...and I continue to work on bringing myself closer to that idea.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

May FOs & WIPs

Finished Objects & Works In Progress


For self/family

Finished:

♥ 1 diaper for eagle (I am really loving stripes right now, and I worked up a new soaker design that dries faster and I'm loving that too!)
♥ 1 diaper cover for Eagle (newly designed pattern--with gussets cuz my kids have skinny legs) (Thanks B for the cute fabric!!)
♥ 1 pair fleece pants for Bear (his favorite pants are fleece, and he loves them so much he even fishes them out of the dirty laundry basket so that he can wear them again...so I pulled out my fleece and let him pick a color and made him another pair of fleece pants. He picked neon orange--leftover from the hunting vest I made Hubby.)
♥ mending knees on 3 pairs of Wolf's pants

In Progress:

♥ second sleeve of Wolf's sweater (it's past the elbow...barely...)
♥ body of Wolf's sweater (I did do a few rows!)
<--- ♥ a pair of wool longies for Eagle
♥ a "vacation shirt" for Hubby ("Hawaiian shirt" style) with this sweet Alaskan fabric ---->




For shops/sale


Finished:

♥ 1 diaper cover
♥ 4 wetbags

In Progress:

♥ 2 cloth pad value packs
♥ 1 more diaper cover (for trade)
♥ 2 diapers (for trade)










~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also have four (yes FOUR!) trades going on right now.

1) Giving diapers and wetbags ---> from SweethavenArts getting several pairs of knitted socks (she has a sock knitting machine, which may be about the coolest thing I've ever seen!)


2) Giving nursing pads ---> from SevenAcreWoods getting handmade soap and alpaca fiber (from an appaloosa alpaca named Houdini!)


3) Giving a diaper ---> from BananaBottoms getting this diaper (because in a houseful of boys, obviously, I need all things camo!) --------->


4) Giving diapers, covers, and wetbags --->from Silverstarflower getting earrings and silver hair barrette (my earrings are this style but in silver and with a green stone)









See what can happen when you turn off the computer one day a week? ☺

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Monopoly with a Three-year-old

This week my husband brought home Alaskan Monopoly (he inherited it from someone at the school I think). Anyway, Wolf was very excited to play it, so tonight after dinner we set it up.
Bear was on my team, since three is pretty young to try to play on his own. After about our fourth turn he got tired of waiting for turns and started playing on his own.

First he traded out everyone's playing pieces.
Where's my piece?
What were you?
I was the car.
Oh, well, I think you're the hat now.
I thought [someone else] was the hat.
No, he used to be the hat, but now he's the battleship, gee, weren't you paying attention??

Then he started playing with the houses and hotels.
Wait, you can't have a house on Juneau, you don't own all the reds.
I didn't put a house on Juneau!
Oh, it was Bear, Bear, you can't just build houses on the board, you have to do them on the table.
[Bear grins and puts a hotel on the board]

And then there was the money.
Here mommy, you can have a pretty pink money.
Oh, thanks honey, where did you get that?
From Daddy.
Oh, well then give this other pink money to daddy, ok?
--and--
Hey, I thought I was broke, I just mortgaged three properties to pay you, how did I get a $500 in my money?
You must not have noticed it
Um, I'm pretty sure I checked...
[Bear grins innocently]

Friday, May 21, 2010

Lost in translation...

My boys have this little plastic knight's helmet. They've had it since, well, Wolf had it before I met him, so for a very long time. It is much-loved and often-worn.

The other day I just happened to notice there was some raised writing inside of it:

"CAUTION
THE SIMULATED PROTECTIVE DEVICE WAS NOT SAFETY DEVICE AND OFFERED NO PROTECTION"

"MADE IN CHINA"
[of course]

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Telling vs Tattling

The thoughts in this post stem from the ideas in Barbara Coloroso's book "Kids are Worth it: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline."

If your kids are old enough to talk, you have probably heard it: "Mooooooom, Johnny is ______"...and then you are supposed to figure out what to do next. Is Freddy's telling of the situation accurate? Should you intervene? Would your intervention be helpful? Is it too late? Did Freddy need to tell you or is he just mad at Johnny? Does Johnny need to be disciplined? Does Freddy need to be disciplined?! It can be complicated.

In the book, Barbara Coloroso suggests this litmus test for determining whether something is "telling" (good) or "tattling" (bad).

Tattling will get the other child into trouble
~
Telling will get the other child (or both children) out of trouble.

So if Johnny stuck his tongue out at Freddy, Freddy is tattling because he's trying to get Johnny into trouble.
If Johnny is stuck on the bathroom counter and can't figure out how to get down (don't laugh, it happens!) then Freddy is telling, and it's a good thing he is because otherwise Johnny might never make it down! ☺

Now I'm not saying that it's ok for Johnny to hit Freddy, and if Freddy was hurt then of course mom should step in and address some things with Johnny. But if there was no bodily harm, then consider letting it slide. No harm no foul...and maybe next time Freddy won't tattle about stuff that doesn't matter.
Ms Coloroso proposes the idea that parents only get involved in what they themselves actually see or hear happen. With the exception of blood or other serious damage, if you weren't there, then let it lie. If you're an attentive parent then you will see/hear a lot of things, and there will be opportunities to teach your children what they need to know. It's a much calmer (and more accomplishable) goal than intervening in every little thing.
I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I don't necessarily wait for serious damage, because I think that certain careless or aggressive behaviors, even if they didn't cause a big problem this time, they might do so next time. So if there was no serious damage but there was potential for it, then I try to intervene with teaching (though not generally with punishment).

I will say that in a household where tattling doesn't accomplish much, it doesn't happen very often. We get reports of legitimate problems, and a smattering of reports which I answer with "sounds like you guys need to work something out, do you want help?" Of course there is telling, but not very much tattling.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

WFMW: Sweet Treats

I suspect that most of us get sweets cravings from time to time. Maybe all the time. My regular readers know that I believe in healthy eating, but that I also believe in moderation, and that I have no objection to whipping up a batch of brownies for no particular reason...but I do object to doing it every day. Unfortunately, I get those sweets cravings almost every day, and when I try to just ignore them they get more intense (isn't that how it always goes when you're trying to quit something?!) So I've found a solution: satisfy the sweet tooth with something that's just a little sweet, but that's more or less good for me.
So, when I have a hankering for brownies, or ice cream, I am usually able to satisfy it with one of these things:
  • A bowl of box cereal (we don't have the super sweet ones, but something like "Honey Bunches of Oats" is sweet enough)
  • Applesauce
  • Yogurt (mine is usually homemade)
  • Yogurt with berries/fruit in it
  • Fruit--fresh or canned (hey, I live in Alaska, fresh fruit is in season for about 2 weeks up here!)
  • A smoothie
  • A homemade muffin (especially if it has berries in it)
  • A piece of toast with butter and/or jam
  • A cup of hot cocoa--especially with coconut oil or cream in it
  • Fruit juice (this usually doesn't work as well, because there's no chewing so it just isn't very satisfying...but in a pinch it's more satisfying than nothing)
  • any other suggestions? (comment please!)
Just as an observation--my mother and I have both observed that a lot of times when we think we're craving sweets, sugar alone does not actually satisfy the craving. Interestingly, what does satisfy the craving is fat--saturated fat (cream, butter, etc). We think it's because of two things 1--those fats usually come together with sugar (brownies, ice cream, cookies...) but sugar is the more recognizable 'taste' for our brains. 2--In our culture's fear of saturated fat, we end up consuming too much unsaturated fat and our bodies are imbalanced (you need a little of each kind of fat because your body uses different types for different things). Due to that imbalance, our bodies give us cravings to get us to consume things that we need.
SO, you'll notice that most of my sweet alternatives also have a little fat in them--and I think that's important. ☺


See more Works for Me Wednesdays here.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Kids are Worth It by Barbara Coloroso

(I actually read "Kids are Worth it: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline" some time ago, and want to re-read it, but this is based off the notes I took at the time)

"It's not control or compliance that you are looking for;
it's calm and cooperation."

As I stated in my prior post about compliance vs cooperation, I feel that it is more important to teach our children how to think and problem solve by themselves than it is to just boss them around all the time. This is more or less the mindset behind this book.

The author, Barbara Coloroso, makes three basic points:
  1. Kids are worth it. It is worth the time and effort that it takes to raise our children. We are glad that we have them. We want them. We love them.
  2. "I will not treat a child in a way that I myself would not want to be treated." Because children are people too, and deserve to keep their dignity intact, including when they make mistakes or do something wrong.
  3. If it works, and leaves my dignity intact, and leaves the child's dignity intact, then it is a good solution.
Her guide for dealing with specific issues that arise is as follows:
Show kids what they have done ~ If the child doesn't realize what he did, then no consequence is going to be useful. Especially with younger children this step may involve helping them to understand why the behavior was a problem (eg, hitting is not ok because it hurts people)
Give them ownership of the problem ~ this is not my problem, it is the child's problem. It's not about me being embarrassed or frustrated, it is about something that the child did and about something that he needs to learn.
Give them options for solving the problem (as they get old enough to begin thinking--I think by age 3 or so--they should participate in the thinking of options. Remember that the goal is to teach them to do this themselves, not to just boss them around! "Plan B" is a great methodology for this) ~ Come up with several possible courses of action. If you are not willing to actually do it, then don't suggest it! Once the options are on the table, the child should choose which course to follow--remember, this is his problem, not yours.
Always leave their dignity intact ~ the goal of consequences should never be to embarrass or shame a child, but merely to teach them.

Coloroso also offers a guide ("RSVP") for what constitutes a reasonable consequence:
Reasonable ~ it makes sense to both parent and child, and is appropriate (natural/logical)
Simple ~ (does this one need to be explained?!)
Valuable ~ the child will actually learn something from this course of action...oh yes, and they will learn what you were hoping to teach!! (in other words, they learn how to make a better choice next time, rather than "I'll be more careful to not get caught next time!")
Practical ~ this also seems obvious, but some people forget about it anyway...one time we were problem solving together and Wolf proposed a solution that might have worked except it involved my micromanaging his life over the coming two weeks. I have other children and *gasp* other responsibilities! I told him that I was happy to help him, but that that particular proposal would not work because I could not do that much. He understood that it was not practical, and we choose something else.

I think that my favorite part of the book was where she talked about finding alternatives to 'no.' Her point was that if you are yelling "No!" at your child every 5 minutes, he will begin to tune it out, and in the moment when it really matters (eg: as he's running into the street) he will neither hear nor respond to you. So, instead of always saying no, Coloroso proposes using alternatives like "yes, but later" or "give me a minute [to think about it]" or (my favorite--for older kids) "Why? Talk me into it!" (Children can come up with a variety of fascinating reasons why they should be allowed to do this or that, and frankly I think a lot of them are valid!)
I find the overuse of 'no' to be a very interesting topic, and I have discussed it in more depth in a separate post.

Here are a few bullet points from my notes:
  • A child is a person--an individual. Let them be independent when they need to be. Let them--or help them--discover who they are, and then let them be themselves (so long as it's not physically, mentally, or morally threatening).
  • When you give a child a choice, there should be no strings attached. Present choices that are all equal rather than some that are "better" or "worse" than the other. Do NOT get upset if the child's choice is not your own!!
  • Good parents neither smother their children's feelings nor steal them. They acknowledge their own feelings and take responsible and purposeful action about them. They allow and teach their children to do the same. They do not judge the feelings of another.
  • When encouraging children to find solutions, have them define what they WILL do rather than what they WON'T do. For example "I won't hit" vs "If I'm upset I will go out of the room." (It's much easier to do something than to not do something. Remember this post?!)
She also has some suggestions about problem solving and also addresses the issue of tattling. I'll cover those in separate posts in the coming week. ☺



My post was featured in the Gentle Discipline Fair!
Visit BabyDustDiaries.com to see the monthly fairs and other great Gentle Discipline resources.

Gentle Parent - art by Erika Hastings at  http://mudspice.wordpress.com/

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The problem with neutrality

"Take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor,

never the oppressed.
Silence encourages the tormentor,
never the tormented."

--Elie Weisel (holocaust survivor, author of "Night")


Precisely why I will not be neutral, and will not be quiet. ☺

Saturday, May 15, 2010

TV and our Children's Minds

This article is very long, and the writing is pretty dense. I found that I needed to read a bit, then go do something else, then read the next section. With that said, it is very interesting, and very thought-provoking. I have done some dividing/bolding of section headings to make it a little easier to break into chunks. Honestly, you can skip the introductory section and skip right down to the Q&A portion and you'll get the meat of the article.
~j



TV and Our Children’s Minds

by Susan R. Johnson, MD, FAAP
May 1, 1999, 2007 (revised)

TV rots the senses in the head!
It kills the imagination dead!
It clogs and clutters up the mind!
It makes a child so dull and blind.
He can no longer understand a fantasy,
A fairyland!
His brain becomes as soft as cheese!
His powers of thinking rust and freeze!

An excerpt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, 1964

As a mother and a pediatrician who completed both a three-year residency in Pediatrics and a three-year subspecialty fellowship in Behavioral and Developmental Pediatrics, I started to wonder: “What are we doing to our children’s growth and learning potential by allowing them to watch television and videos as well as spend endless hours playing computer games?” I practiced seven years as the Physician Consultant at the School Health Center in San Francisco, performing comprehensive assessments on children, ages 4–12, who were having learning and behavioral difficulties in school. I saw hundreds of children who were having difficulties paying attention, focusing on their work, and performing fine and gross motor tasks. Many of these children had a poor self-image and problems relating to adults and peers.

As a pediatrician, I had always discouraged television viewing, because of the often violent nature of its content (especially cartoons) and because of all the commercials aimed at children. However, it wasn’t until the birth of my own child, 6 years ago, that I came face to face with the real impact of television. It wasn’t just the content, for I had carefully screened the programs my child watched. It was the change in my child’s behavior (his mood, his motor movements, his play) before, during and after watching TV that truly frightened me. Before watching TV, he would be outside in nature, content to look at bugs, make things with sticks and rocks, and play in the water and sand. He seemed at peace with himself, his body, and his environment. When watching TV, he was so unresponsive to me and to what was happening around him, that he seemed glued to the television set. When I turned off the TV he became anxious, nervous, and irritable and usually cried (or screamed) for the TV to be turned back on. His play was erratic, his movements impulsive and uncoordinated. His play lacked his own imaginative input. Instead of creating his own play themes, he was simply reenacting what he had just seen on TV in a very repetitive, uncreative, and stilted way.

At age 3-1/2 years, our son went on a plane trip to visit his cousins near Boston, and on the plane was shown the movie Mission Impossible. The movie was right above our son’s head making it difficult to block out. Earphones had not been purchased, so the impact was only visual, but what an impact it had on our son. He had nightmares and fears about fires, explosions, and bloody hands for the next 6 months, and his play was profoundly changed. One of my colleagues told me I just had an overly sensitive child, and because I had not taken him to see a movie or let him watch much TV, he was not “used to it” and that was why he was so disturbed by the pictures he saw. All I could think was—thank heaven he was not “used to it.”

Later that year, I assessed six different children from ages 8–11 years at the School Health Center who all had similar difficulties with reading. They couldn’t make a mental picture of letters or words. If I showed them a series of letters and asked them to identify one particular letter, they could do it. If I gave them no visual input and just asked them to write a particular letter by memory, they couldn’t do it. All of these children watched a lot of television and videos and played computer games. I wondered what happens to a developing child placed in front of a TV set if they are presented with visual and auditory stimuli at the same time. What is left for the mind to do? At least with reading a story or having a story read to them, the mind can create its own imaginative pictures.

A question arose and I immediately called up my colleague and asked: “Could television itself be causing attention problems and learning difficulties in children?” My colleague laughed and said just about everyone watches TV—even my child does—and she doesn’t have Attention Deficit Disorder or a learning disability. I thought to myself: “Are we spending enough time with our children and looking deeply enough into their development and souls to notice the often subtle changes that occur from spending hours in front of the TV set?” Maybe some children are more vulnerable to the effects of television because of a genetic predisposition or poor nutrition or a more chaotic home environment. I wondered about the loss of potential in all our children, because they are exposed to so much television and so many videos and computers games. What are the capacities we are losing or not even developing because of this TV habit? I then started to read, attend lectures, and ask a lot more questions.

Television has been in existence for the past 80 years, though the broadcasting of entertainment shows didn’t begin until the 1940s. In 1950, 10 percent of American households owned a TV set. By 1954, this percentage had increased to 50 percent, and by 1960, 80 percent of American households owned a television. Since 1970, more than 98 percent of American households own a TV and currently 66 percent of households own three or more TVs. Television is on almost 7 hours per day in an average American home. Children of all ages, from preschool through adolescence, watch an average of 4 hours of TV per day (excluding time spent watching videos or playing computer games). A child spends more time watching TV than any other activity except sleeping, and by age 18 a child has spent more time in front of a TV than at school.

There have been numerous articles looking at the content of television and how commercials influence children’s (and adults’) desires for certain foods or material goods (e.g., toys), and how violence seen on television (even in cartoons) leads to more aggressive behavior in children (Fischer et al. 1991, Singer 1989, Zuckerman 1985). Concerns have been raised about who is teaching our children and the developmental appropriateness of what is presented on TV to toddlers, children, and even adolescents.

Miles Everett, Ph.D., in his book, How Television Poisons Children’s Minds, points out that we don’t allow our child to talk to strangers, yet through television we allow strangers into the minds and souls of our children everyday. These “strangers” (advertising agencies), whose motivations are often monetary, are creating the standards for what is “good” or developmentally appropriate for the developing brains of our children. More importantly, several investigators (Healy 1990, Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998, Winn 1985) have drawn attention to the actual act of viewing television as even more insidious and potentially damaging to the brain of the developing child than the actual content of what’s on TV. So what are we doing to our children’s potential by allowing them to watch television?


Question: How does a child’s brain develop and how does a child learn?

Joseph Chilton Pearce in his book, Evolution’s End, sees a child’s potential as a seed that needs to be nurtured and nourished in order to grow properly. If the environment doesn’t provide the necessary nurturing (and protections from over-stimulation), then certain potentials and abilities cannot be realized. The infant is born with 10 billion nerve cells or neurons and spends the first three years of life adding billions of glial cells to support and nourish these neurons (Everett 1992). These neurons are then capable of forming thousands of interconnections with each other via spider-like projections called dendrites and longer projections called axons that extend to other regions of the brain. It is important to realize that a six-year-old’s brain is 2/3 the size of an adult’s though it has 5–7 times more connections between neurons than does the brain of an 18-month-old or an adult (Pearce 1992). The brain of a 6–7 year old child appears to have a tremendous capacity for making thousands and thousands of dendrite connections among neurons.

This potential for development ends around age 10–11 when the child loses 80 percent of this dendritic mass (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). It appears that what we don’t develop or use, we lose as a capacity. An enzyme is released within the brain and literally dissolves all poorly myelinated pathways (Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). In the developing child, there is a progression of brain development from the most primitive core (action) brain, to the limbic (feeling) brain, and finally to the most advanced neocortex, or thought brain. There are critical periods for brain development when the stimulus must be present for the capacity to evolve (for example, language). There is also plasticity in brain development so that even adults can make new dendritic connections, but they have to work harder to establish pathways which were more easily made in childhood.

The core (action) brain is dedicated to our physical survival and manages reflexes, controls our motor movements, monitors body functions, and processes information from our senses. Along with the limbic (feeling) brain, it is involved in the “flight or fight” response that our body has to a dangerous or threatening situation. Humans react physically and emotionally before the thought brain has had time to process the information (Buzzell 1998). Our limbic (feeling) brain wraps around our core (action) brain and processes emotional information (e.g., our likes/dislikes, love/hate polarities). Our feeling brain gives meaning and value to our memories and what we learn. It influences behavior based on emotional feelings and has an intimate relationship to our immune system and capacity to heal. It is involved in the forming of our intimate relationships and emotional bonds (e.g., between mother and child) and is connected with our dreaming, subtle intuitive experiences and the daydreams and fantasies that originate from the thought brain (Healy 1990). This feeling brain connects the more highly evolved thought brain to the more primitive action brain. Our lower action brain can be made to follow the will of our thought brain or our higher thought brain can be “locked into” the service of the lower action-feeling brain during an emergency that is real or imagined (Pearce 1992). The action and feeling brains can’t distinguish real from imaginary sensory input. It is a survival advantage to react first and think later.

Finally our thought brain, the neocortex, represents our highest and newest form of intellect. It receives extensive input from the core (action) brain and limbic (feeling) brain and has the potential of separating itself and being the most objective part of the brain. It connects us to our higher self. However, the neocortex needs more time to process the images from the action and feeling brains. It is also the part of the brain that has the most potential for the future, and it is the place where our perceptions (experiences), recollections, feelings, and thinking skills all combine to shape our ideas and actions (Everett 1997). The thinking brain is “5 times larger than the other brains combined and provides intellect, creative thinking, computing and, if developed, sympathy, empathy, compassion and love” (Pearce 1992).

There is a sequential development (a progressive myelination of nerve pathways) of the child’s brain from the most primitive (action) brain to the limbic (feeling) brain and finally to the most highly evolved thought brain, or neocortex. Myelination involves covering the nerve axons and dendrites with a protective fatty-protein sheath. The more a pathway is used, the more myelin is added. The thicker the myelin sheath, the faster the nerve impulse or signal travels along the pathway. For these reasons, it is imperative that the growing child receives developmentally appropriate input from his/her environment in order to nourish each part of the brain’s development and promote the myelination of new nerve pathways. For example, young children who are in the process of forming their motor-sensory pathways and sense organs (the action brain) need repetitive and rhythmical experiences in movement. Children also need experiences that stimulate and integrate their senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Their senses need to be protected from over-stimulation, since young children are literally sponges. Children absorb all they see, hear, smell, taste and touch from their environment since they haven’t developed the brain capacity to discriminate or filter out unpleasant or noxious sense experiences.

The sense of touch is especially crucial since our culture and its hospital birth practices (including the high rate of C-sections) and, until recently, its discouragement of breastfeeding, deprive infants of critical multi-sensory experiences. The stimulation and development of our sense organs is the precursor to the development of part of our lower brain, called the Reticular Activating System (RAS). The RAS is the gateway through which our sense impressions coordinate with each other and then travel to the higher thought brain. The RAS is the area of the brain that allows us to attend and focus our attention. Impairments in motor-sensory pathways lead to impairments in children’s attention span and ability to concentrate (Buzzell 1998). Over-stimulation and under-stimulation of our senses and poorly developed fine and gross motor movements may lead to impairments in attention. By age 4, both the core (action) and limbic (feeling) brains are 80 percent myelinated. After age 6–7, the brain’s attention is shifted to the neocortex (thought brain) with myelination beginning first on the right side or hemisphere and later joined by the left hemisphere.

The right hemisphere is the more intuitive side of the brain, and it particularly responds to visual images. It grasps wholes, shapes and patterns and focuses on the big picture rather than the details. It directs drawing and painting and monitors melodies and harmonies of music. It is especially responsive to novelty and color and is the dominant hemisphere when watching TV (Healy, 1990, Everett 1997). The left hemisphere dominates when a child reads, writes and speaks. It specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning. It analyzes the sound and meaning of language (e.g., phonic skills of matching sound to letters of the alphabet). It manages fine muscle skills and is concerned with order, routine and details. The ability to comprehend science, religion, math (especially geometry) and philosophy relies on abstract thinking characteristic of the left hemisphere.

Even though we emphasize which functions of learning are performed by which hemisphere, there is a crucial connection between the two hemispheres called the corpus callosum. It consists of a large bundle of nerve pathways that form a bridge between the left and right hemispheres. It is one of the brain’s latest-maturing parts. The left and right sides of the body learn to coordinate with each other by this pathway. Gross motor activities like jumping rope, climbing, running, and circle games and fine motor activities like form drawing, knitting, pottery, origami, woodworking, embroidery, and bread-making are crucial to myelinating this pathway and lead to more flexible manipulation of ideas and a creative imagination. This pathway provides the interplay between analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe that poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres’ effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and learning difficulties (Healy 1990).

We myelinate our pathways by using them. Movements of our bodies combine with experiences of our senses to build strong neural pathways and connections. For example, when a toddler listens to the sound of a ball bouncing on the floor, tastes and smells the ball or pushes, rolls and throws the ball, neurons are making dendritic connections with each other. When a toddler examines balls of varying sizes, shapes, weights and textures, a field of thousands (and possibly millions) of interconnecting neurons can be created around the “word” ball (Pearce 1992). Repetition, movement, and multisensory stimulation are the foundations of the language development and higher level thinking. The toddler’s repetitive experiences with an object like a ball, create images or pictures in his/her brain. “The images of the core limbic brain form much of the elemental “food” for the remarkable and progressive abstracting abilities of the associative high cortex [neocortex]” (Buzzell 1998).

Question: What is so harmful to the mind about watching television?

Watching television has been characterized as multileveled sensory deprivation that may be stunting the growth of our children’s brains. Brain size has been shown to decrease 20–30 percent if a child is not touched, played with or talked to (Healy 1990). In addition, when young animals were placed in an enclosed area where they could only watch other animals play, their brain growth decreased in proportion to the time spent inactively watching (Healy 1990). Television really only presents information to two senses: hearing and sight. In addition, the poor quality of reproduced sound presented to our hearing and the flashing, colored, fluorescent over-stimulating images presented to our eyes cause problems in the development and proper function of these two critical sense organs (Poplawski 1998). To begin with, a child’s visual acuity and full binocular (three-dimensional) vision are not fully developed until 4 years of age, and the picture produced on the television screen is an unfocused (made up of dots of light), two-dimensional image that restricts our field of vision to the TV screen itself. Images on TV are produced by a cathode ray gun that shoots electrons at phosphors (fluorescent substances) on the TV screen. The phosphors glow and this artificially produced pulsed light projects directly into our eyes and beyond affecting the secretions of our neuroendocrine system (Mander 1978). The actual image produced by dots of light is fuzzy and unfocused, so that our eyes, and the eyes of our children, have to strain to make the image clear.

Television, like any electrical appliance and like power lines, produces invisible waves of electromagnetism. Last June, a panel convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences decided there was enough evidence to consider these invisible waves (called electromagnetic fields or EMFs) as possible human carcinogens. In the article it was recommended that children sit at least 4 feet from TV and 18 inches from the computer screen (Gross 1999). Our visual system, “the ability to search out, scan, focus, and identify whatever comes in the visual field” (Buzzell 1998), is impaired by watching TV. These visual skills are also the ones that need to be developed for effective reading. Children watching TV do not dilate their pupils, show little to no movement of their eyes (i.e., stare at the screen), and lack the normal saccadic movements of the eyes (a jumping from one line of print to the next) that is critical for reading. The lack of eye movement when watching television is a problem because reading requires the eyes to continually move from left to right across the page. The weakening of eye muscles from lack of use can’t help but negatively impact the ability and effort required to read. In addition, our ability to focus and pay attention relies on this visual system.

Pupil dilation, tracking and following are all part of the reticular activating system. The RAS is the gateway to the right and left hemispheres. It determines what we pay attention to and is related to the child’s ability to concentrate and focus. The RAS is not operating well when a child watches television. A poorly integrated lower brain can’t properly access the higher brain. In addition, the rapid-fire change of television images, which occurs every 5 to 6 seconds in many programs and 2 to 3 seconds in commercials (even less on MTV), does not give the higher thought brain a chance to even process the image. It reportedly takes the neocortex anywhere from 5 to 10 seconds to engage after a stimulus (Scheidler 1994). The neocortex is our higher brain, but also needs a greater processing time to become involved. All the color combinations produced on the television screen result from the activation of only three types of phosphors: red, blue and green. The wavelengths of visible light produced by the activation of these phosphors represents an extremely limited spectrum compared to the wavelengths of light we receive when viewing objects outdoors in the full spectrum of reflected rays from the sun. Another problem with color television is that the color from it is almost exclusively processed by the right hemisphere so that left hemisphere functioning is diminished and the corpus callosum (the pathway of communication between the brain’s hemispheres) is poorly utilized (i.e., poorly myelinated).

Reading a book, walking in nature, or having a conversation with another human being, where one takes the time to ponder and think, are far more educational than watching TV. The television—and computer games—are replacing these invaluable experiences of human conversations, storytelling, reading books, playing “pretend” (using internal images created by the child rather than the fixed external images copied from television), and exploring nature. Viewing television represents an endless, purposeless, physically unfulfilling activity for a child. Unlike eating until one is full or sleeping until one is no longer tired, watching television has no built-in endpoint. It makes a child want more and more without ever being satisfied (Buzzell 1998).


Question: Well, what about watching Sesame Street? Isn’t it educational for our children? Doesn’t it teach them how to read?

Jane Healy, Ph.D., in her book, Endangered Minds wrote an entire chapter entitled “Sesame Street and the Death of Reading.” In addition to the concerns already mentioned about watching television, Sesame Street and the majority of children’s programming seem to put the left hemisphere and parts of the right hemisphere into slow waves of inactivity (alpha waves). Television anesthetizes our higher brain functions and disrupts the balance and interaction between the left and right hemispheres.

Brain waves can be measured by an EEG, and variations in recorded brain waves correspond to different states of activity in the brain. In general, reading produces active, fast beta waves while television watching leads to an increase in slow alpha waves in the left hemisphere and at times even in the right hemisphere (Buzzell 1998). Once again, the left hemisphere is the critical center for reading, writing and speaking. It is the place where abstract symbols (e.g., the letters of the alphabet) are connected to sounds (phonic skills). The pulsating fluorescent light source of television may have something to do with promoting slow wave activity. Our brain “wakes up” to novelty and falls asleep or habituates to repetitive, “boring” stimuli. Advertising agencies and many children’s shows (including Sesame Street) have had to counter children’s tendency to habituate to television by increasing the frequency of new images, using flashing colors, closeups, and startling, often loud, sounds. These distracters get our attention momentarily but keep us operating in our lower core and limbic brains. The lower brain can’t discern between images that are real or created on TV, because discernment is the function of the neocortex. Therefore, when the TV presents sudden close-ups, flashing lights, etc., as stimuli, the core-limbic brain immediately goes into a “fight or flight” response with the release of hormones and chemicals throughout the body. Heart rate and blood pressure are increased and blood flow to limb muscles is increased to prepare for this apparent emergency. Because this all happens in our body without the corresponding movement of our limbs, certain TV programs actually put us in a state of chronic stress or anxiety. Studies have shown atrophy of the left hemisphere in adults who are chronically stressed and only functioning from their core-limbic brain. Even as adults, what we don’t use, we lose.

Finally, when our brain is simultaneously presented with visual (images on the screen) and auditory (sound) stimuli, we preferentially attend to the visual. A dramatic example of this phenomenon was illustrated when a group of young children (6–7 years old) were shown a video show where the sound track did not match the visual action, and the children, when questioned, did not appear to notice the discrepancy. Therefore, even in Sesame Street, studies have shown that children are not absorbing the content of the show (Healy 1990). Maybe the most critical argument against watching television is that it affects the three characteristics that distinguish us as human beings. In the first 3 years of life, a child learns to walk, to talk and to think. Television keeps us sitting, leaves little room for meaningful conversations, and seriously impairs our ability to think.


Question: What’s wrong with using television as just entertainment?

I enjoyed watching Disney films like Snow White. Television seems to have a profound effect on our feeling life and therefore, one could argue, on our soul. As human beings, we become detached from the real world by watching television. We sit in a comfortable chair, in a warm room, with plenty to eat and watch a show about people who are homeless, cold and hungry. Our hearts go out to them, but we do nothing. One could argue that reading a book could promote the same sense of unreality without action. The phrases “turn off the TV” or “get your nose out of your book” and “go do something” have meaning.

Nevertheless, while reading a book (that doesn’t have a lot of pictures) the child’s mind creates its own pictures and has time to think about them. These thoughts could actually lead to ideas that inspire a child or adult to action. TV does not give time for this higher level of thinking that inspires deeds. Television projects images that go directly into our emotional brain. It is said that the words we hear go into knowledge while the images we see go into our soul. Pictures that elicit emotion are processed by the limbic system and the right hemisphere of the neocortex. If no time is given to think about these emotional pictures, then the left hemisphere is not involved. Once again, watching television often eliminates the part of our brain that can make sense of, analyze and rationalize what we are seeing. We don’t forget what we see. The limbic brain is connected to our memory, and the pictures we see on TV are remembered—either consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously.

For example, it is almost impossible to create your own pictures of Snow White from reading a story if you have seen the movie. It is also true that often one is disappointed when one sees a movie after reading the book. Our imagination is so much richer than what can be shown on a screen. The problem with television is that children get used to not using their imaginative thinking at all, and they don’t exercise that part of the brain (the neocortex) that creates the pictures. Children are not reading enough, and we aren’t reading or telling them enough stories to help their minds create pictures. Creating pictures is not just entertaining, but the foundation of our dreams and higher thoughts (intuitions, inspirations and imaginations). We dream, think and imagine possibilities of the future in pictures.

Finally, the heart is now seen as an organ of perception that can respond to a stimulus and release a hormone-like substance that influences brain activity. This phenomenon is referred to as our heart intelligence (Pearce 1992). Interacting with human beings is essential for the development of this intelligence. When we stand face to face and look into another person’s eyes, we meet soul to soul and we get a sense of who they really are (Soesman). We get a sense of whether they mean what they say—in other words, whether they are enthusiastic and passionate about their subject. We experience their non-verbal language such as how they move, the tone of their voice, and whether their gaze shifts around when they talk. This is how we learn to discern consistency between verbal and non-verbal cues and, therefore, truth.

Television can’t give us this intelligence of the heart. It can shock our emotions, and we can cry, laugh or get angry, but these emotions are just reactions. When human beings speak on TV, children are often doing homework, playing games, and talking to friends while watching TV. These activities help save their visual system from the effects of TV, but the underlying message is that you don’t need to listen when another person speaks or comfort anyone if you hear crying. If the heart, like the brain and probably the rest of our body, gives off electromagnetic waves (Pearce 1992, Tiller 1999), then there is a form of subtle energy that only can be experienced between human beings by relating to each other in the same physical space. This subtle energy can’t be experienced by watching human beings on television. Just as we must use all our senses to construct higher level thoughts or pictures of an object, empathy and love for others does not develop from seeing human beings as objects on TV, but by actively relating, face to face, with each other.


Question: What can we do to help our children’s brains develop?


1. Keep the television turned off as much as possible. One author recommended avoiding television as much as possible for the first 12 years of your child’s life and then encouraging your child to always read the book first before seeing the movie. It helps to cover the TV with a cloth or store it away in a closed cabinet or closet. Out of sight really helps the child keep the TV out of mind (Large 1997). Remember that what we do serves as a role model for our children. We can’t really ask our children to stop watching TV if we keep doing it—that will eventually lead to power struggles. When the television is on, then try to neutralize its damage. Select the programs carefully and watch TV with your child so you can talk about what you see. Keep a light on when the TV is going since that will minimize the effects of the reduced field of vision and provide a different light source for the eyes. Try to sit at least 4 feet from the television and 18 inches from the computer screen. Plan to go outside (to the park, woods, or beach) after viewing television.

2. Read a lot of books to your children (especially ones without lots of pictures) and tell your children lots of stories. Children love to hear stories about our lives when we were little or you can make them up. Bedtime and riding in the car provide good opportunities for telling stories. Telling our children stories helps to stimulate their internal picture making capabilities.

3. Nature! Nature! Nature! Nature is the greatest teacher of patience, delayed gratification, reverence, awe and observation. The colors are spectacular and all the senses are stimulated. Many children today think being out in nature is boring, because they are so used to the fast-paced, action-packed images from TV (Poplawski 1998). We only truly learn when all our senses are involved, and when the information is presented to us in such a way that our higher brain can absorb it. Nature is reality while television is a pseudo-reality.

4. Pay close attention to your senses and those of your child. Our environment is noisy and overstimulating to the sense organs. What a child sees, hears, smells, tastes, and touches is extremely important to his or her development. We need to surround our children with what is beautiful, what is good, and what is true. How a child experiences the world has a tremendous influence on how the child perceives the world as a teenager and adult.

5. Have children use their hands, feet and whole body performing purposeful activities. All the outdoor activities of running, jumping, climbing, and playing jump rope help develop our children’s gross motor skills and myelinate pathways in the higher brain. Performing household chores, cooking, baking bread, knitting, woodworking, origami, string games, finger games, circle games, painting, drawing, and coloring help develop fine motor skills and also myelinate pathways in the higher brain.

Finally, the future of our children and our society is in the protection and development of our children’s minds, hearts and limbs. What we are aiming for in the thoughts of our children is best summarized in this fine verse from William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence”:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.


------

Acknowledgments

—To Cindy Blain for her dedicated and inspirational work in preparing this paper and creating the title.

—To Jacques Lusseyran whose book, And There Was Light, literally opened my eyes to the more subtle senses of human beings.

Bibliography

Buzzell, Keith. The Children of Cyclops: The Influence of Television Viewing on the Developing Human Brain. 1998 California: AWSNA.

Everett, Miles. How Television Poisons Children’s Minds. 1997 California: Miles Publishing.

Fischer, Paul. “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel.” JAMA Vol. 266, No. 22, December 11, 1991.

Gross, Liza. “Current Risks: Experts finally link Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer.” SIERRA, May/June 1999, p. 30.

Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and What We Can Do About It. 1990 New York: Simon and Schuster.

Large, Martin. Who’s Bringing Them Up? How to Break the TV Habit. 1997, 3rd ed. England: Hawthorn Press.

Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 1978 New York: William Morrow and Co.

Pearce, Joseph Chilton. Evolution’s End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence. 1992 California: Harper San Francisco.

Poplawski, Thomas. “Losing Our Senses.” Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, Fall 1998.

Scheidler, Thomas. “Television, Video Games and the LD Child.” 1995 Pamphlet: Greenwood Institute.

Singer, Dorothy. “Caution: Television May Be Hazardous to a Child’s Mental Health.” Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 10, No. 5, October 1989.

Soesman, Albert. The Twelve Senses: Wellsprings of the Soul. 1998 England: Hawthorn Press.

Tiller, William. “Robust Manifestations of Subtle Energies in Physical Reality and Its Implications for Future Medicine.” Lecture, Stanford University, April 28, 1999.

Winn, Marie. The Plug-in Drug. 1985 New York: Penguin Books.

Zuckerman, Diana M. and Barry S. Zuckerman. “Television’s Impact on Children.” Pediatrics, Vol. 75, No. 2, February 1985.

This paper was first presented at the Waldorf School of San Francisco on May 1, 1999 as part of a senior project.

Reprints available from the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA) – http://www.awsna.orgpublications@awsna.org

Linked Within

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...