RE: [Discuss-sudbury-model] tv and thinking

What will a person miss, who is not grounded in the medium
of television?

Our entire cultural language, and ways of thinking about and
viewing the world, are grounded in TV.

S/he is missing the same sort of thing that a person who is
denied prose or poetry is missing. A way of looking at the
world.

This challenge:

> I would think that Sudbury devotees would be as concerned
> by a flickering screen that mediates the experiences of
> children as they are with the educational institutions
> that perform the same function.

Has been posed before. My response:

> Virtually all media is designed to convince (this
> message and your message included). It's funny that when
> people research whether/if/how opinions change or develop
> from TV they use loaded words like "brainwash" but when
> they talk about newspapers or books or conversations they
> tend to use words loaded in the OPPOSITE direction like
> "inform," "convince," "inspire," "explain."

For more from that thread, and/or to see my response in
context, check
http://www.sudval.org/users/sdg/archives/dsm7/0285.html

You also write:

> The potential dangers of watching television have been
> fairly well presented over the past 30 years by a number
> of researchers and writers. Unfortunately, the most
> caustic effects of television viewing, the ways in which
> cultural attitudes are created, transmitted, and altered,
> are the most difficult to quantify.

I wonder why you didn't bother responding to my post, sent
earlier today:

http://www.sudval.org/users/sdg/archives/dsm8/1852.html

To wit:

> I have never seen *any* evidence that television
> negatively impacts anyone. None. And I worked for years in
> the field of psychology. One of my dearest friends has
> worked for years on the interesting phenomena of *play*,
> in the immediate aftermath of watching media, being
> influenced by the contents of that media -- and has been
> working hard to debunk the pop-psych frauds that like to
> suggest mistaken headlines from this research "link
> between violence and television."
>
> Really. What is the *evidence* for all this stuff that
> people just *assume* when they talk about TV and games?
> Where does the claim that TV is "something that is not
> good for his brain development" spring from? Or that, at
> least to some people, games aren't "more interesting" than
> something else? Or that "if it's the same game for a
> month, they'll want to throw the whole system away?"

You also wrote:

> I'm concerned with the medium itself, not just the way it
> is being abused by our corporate masters.

Without citing or responding to my / Marshall McLuhan's
defenses of the medium -- also in
http://www.sudval.org/users/sdg/archives/dsm8/1852.html

This message of yours that I am quoting back *seems* to be a
list of "truisms." What is the *proof* behind / evidence for
these claims of yours? And why are you not responding
directly to the evidence presented on the contrary side?

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Jesse Gallagher wrote:

> With all respect, and with all sincerity, I must ask TV
> proponents the following question:
>
> What exactly is it that we're afraid our children will
> miss out on if they don't watch television?
>
> The potential dangers of watching television have been
> fairly well presented over the past 30 years by a number
> of researchers and writers. Unfortunately, the most
> caustic effects of television viewing, the ways in which
> cultural attitudes are created, transmitted, and altered,
> are the most difficult to quantify.
>
> What is it about television that makes it worth risking
> any one of the potential dangers, never mind the toxic
> synergy of the parts come together?
>
> Frankly, I don't understand it.
>
> The best anyone has ever been able to tell me is that
> they enjoy some program or another. I don't think I want
> to discuss the relative merits of The Sopranos vs. Sex in
> the City.
>
> I'm concerned with the medium itself, not just the way it
> is being abused by our corporate masters.
>
> I would think that Sudbury devotees would be as concerned
> by a flickering screen that mediates the experiences of
> children as they are with the educational institutions
> that perform the same function.
>
> Jesse

--
 
--Scott David Gray
reply to: sgray_at_sudval.org
http://www.unseelie.org/
============================================================
Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers. 
-- Pablo Picasso
============================================================