Forum menu
my wife didn't have a TV until she was 14, (imo) as a result she's the worst TV addict ever!
rightplacerighttime - so do you disagree with Dr Goldacre assertion that Dr Sigman is guilty of cherry picking evidence to back up his rather dubious claims?
Yes.
I think I might start a blog called "Bad Bad Science"
Where did you get he idea that Dr Sigman had made any "dubious" claims BTW?
ok - I'm interested. Why do you disagree?
Because Goldacre says that Sigman is claiming things he isn't claiming, then tries to shoot down the claims (that he didn't make) - typical Straw Man stuff.
Watch the clip again.
Where did you get he idea that Dr Sigman had made any "dubious" claims BTW?
I guess from reading Ben Goldacre's column and from my following up some of the stuff on Mindhacks. Also, my general common sense when faced with a claim that Facebook causes cancer: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/02February/Pages/Facebookhealthstudy.aspx
I'm not specifically talking about the clip - Dr Sigman's work has been critiqued elsewhere - see nhs link above (which Ben Goldacre was involved in writing I believe). It does seem obvious than Sigman has cherry picked the data.
The good thing about books like the one by Dr Sigman, is that it [b]eliminates years of the scientific debate[/b] and puts it into [b]an opinion[/b] that a layperson can follow (although he does of course give lots of [b]one-sided[/b] references).
FTFY.
So your main problem is simply that Messrs Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, Wright, Murphy, St Peters, Piñon, Scantlin, and Kotler haven't written you a similarly one-sided book called [i]"Good Kids Television Is Actually Quite Educational And A Useful Developmental Aid"[/i]
Thing is, even if they had the fame-hungry popular style of Dr Sigman, such a book wouldn't sell. People love extremes and black-and-white. The truth is usually far greyer.
I think you are pretty shortsighted in your approach, but there you go.
Yes, how short-sighted of me to attempt to look for evidence and examine contradictory points, rather than simply accepting as gospel the points made by one man in a £7 self help book.
Perhaps I should also read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0948096268 ][i]"Television Is Good for Your Kids"[/i] by Maire Messenger Davies[/url]?
BTW - it is completely obvious even from the selected quote you have used in your second excerpt, that the paper is comparing different content, not making a comparison between viewing and not viewingI know you are pretty anxious to show us how clever you are, but do try to read this stuff before you bung it up.
Yes - hence why it backs up MSP's point: it is about balance and filtering - not the medium. Do try to read my argument before attempting to dismiss it.
my general common sense when faced with a claim that Facebook causes cancer:
Ah yes. I believe that might have been an article in the Daily Hate? That wouldn't automatically lead me to believe it was something that Dr Sigman said (or in fact that anyone said).
It does seem obvious than Sigman has cherry picked the data.
Not to me.
RPRT, your starting to have an almost religious zeal for Sigmans book, while ignoring anything that seems to disagree with its claims.
Yes - hence why it backs up MSP's point: it is about balance and filtering - not the medium. Do try to read my argument before attempting to dismiss it.
No it doesn't.
You haven't understood what you have quoted and why it does not counter the views put forward by Sigman.
The paper you quote seems to be saying that some programmes are better than others. It does not ask the question of whether any TV is better than no TV.
But the conclusion you draw is that the best thing for kids is "good quality" TV.
RPRT, your starting to have an almost religious zeal for Sigmans book, while ignoring anything that seems to disagree with its claims.
Not at all.
I just haven't seen anything here to persuade me that he is wrong.
However, I note your attempt to discredit me by branding me as "religious"
LOL
You haven't understood what you have quoted
Yes, yes I have.
and why it does not counter the views put forward by Sigman
I'm not [i]trying[/i] to counter Dr Sigman's views. As you point out, I haven't read his book so I don't know all his views.
I'm trying to support MSP's point that content, rather than medium, is the important thing.
This handily offers a counterpoint to the fairly solid anti-TV paper which joe cited (and which Dr Sigman cites in his references) because that study did not consider the content of the TV watched.
But the conclusion you draw is that the best thing for kids is "good quality" TV.
Nope. I think the "best thing" for kids is parents that love and care for them.
I'm not trying to counter Dr Sigman's views. As you point out, I haven't read his book so I don't know all his views.I'm trying to support MSP's point that content, rather than medium, is the important thing.
Then you [b]are[/b] trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium, rather than content, is the important thing.
I did point this out some time ago.
Then you are trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium rather than content is the important thing.
Rightio - I am apparently contending that particular point of his/yours.
I did point this out some time ago.
I don't read everything you say. I have a very short attention span and it is too busy thinking up something clever to say to read your posts properly. 😛
Then you are trying to counter Sigman's views, because his view is that medium, rather than content, is the important thing.
So you would let your child view violent pornography in a book, rather than educational material on a computer or television?
Yes, but only while they were high on heroin.
I don't read everything you say. I have a very short attention span and it is too busy thinking up something clever to say to read your posts properly.
Then can I have the last several hours of my life back please?
I thought you took this seriously. You were keen for me to give you some citations of papers you could go and read a minute ago.
🙄 At least kids that watch TV can understand a joke.
FWIW I've spent most of the day on PubMed looking at the research base for this stuff.
FWIW I've spent most of the day on PubMed looking at the research base for this stuff.
I look forward to your grovelling apology later on when you've had time to read some of it then.
I find the major problem with iDevices and children is that it's purely consumption - at least with a Spectrum and having to type in code from magazines you learned a bit of syntax checking and maybe messed it about a bit and learned something.
Eldest brassneck jr. (5) is getting an empty laptop and a CD of Gentoo - get Angry Birds running on that and you'll have earned the right to play it 🙂
As always, it's all things in moderation.. I wouldn't buy him a iPod Touch now, but I've no objection to him using my toys every now and then.
No.2 especially likes [url= http://www.buildyourwildself.com/ ]Build Your Wild Self[/url] though not much fussed about other computery stuff. It's New York Zoos and Aquariums so must be educaitonal.
iPod touch??? What's wrong with a blinkin bike? Don't tell me they already have one as everyone on here knows that the ideal number of bicycles is n+1 (n being the number you already own).
Oh 😳 , I get it now. Kids, eh? Why do I always fall for these trolling posts.
[i]wanders off mumbling to grannieslovedirt.com[/i]
You should encourage your kids to spend as much time immersed in technology as possible, it will give them a massive advantage over the kids who aren't technologically literate in the same way that we have a divide between the technology "haves" and "have nots" today.
If you really want them succeed, teach them Chinese.
I still think 5 and 6 is too young. I reckon my progress from Amstrads, to Acorns and PC's, along with Gameboys, SNSE and Playstation 1. has not been great for my eyesight.
I think the problem with i-devices (in fact technology now) is that it's pretty instant and immmersive, it's not like you're playing with lego while waiting for a tape to load up, or watching newsround over the top of a puzzle game on a mono LCD, or trying to fix a mechanical speedo to a bmx, or how to film and edit a bike video on an analogue camcorder...
When we all croak there will be no-one to answer these kids questions on internet forums.
The most important thing to learn from this thread is that new meccano is inherently not as good as old Meccano due to the cheap, coarse pitch, hex key bolts being inferior in every way to the fine pitch brass bolts of yore (actually before my time).
The most important thing to learn from this thread is that new meccano is inherently not as good as old Meccano due to the cheap, coarse pitch, hex key bolts being inferior in every way to the fine pitch brass bolts of yore.
Thanks,
I knew I would eventually learn something useful if I hung around for long enough.
What happens when you let my 4 year old play with a itouch 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Apple btw were amazing and swapped it for a new one for free! Even though we told them we had been stupid and let a 4 year old trash it!
She is also good at destroying iphones,laptops,TV's,games consoles.... etc.
Available for rent if you are a product tester 😉