
Children learn best when engaged in the living world, not on screens - acconrad
https://aeon.co/essays/children-learn-best-when-engaged-in-the-living-world-not-on-screens
======
jupp0r
The whole article seems like a straw man. Nobody is proposing to replace real-
world experience by technology. People are proposing to replace

* going to a library and not finding a book by wikipedia

* learning glaciology not by reading about it in an outdated school book, but by increasing snowfall in a simulation and seeing the glacier grow

* not learning a huge amount of useless facts, but being able to look them up like the rest of society does

~~~
ska
The funny thing about this is I think I get where you are coming from, but
also think all of your examples are at best problematic.

Wikipedia is a reasonable replacement for an encyclopedia - which remains a
terrible replacement for a library.

Simulations are never a replacement for what they simulate. At best this can
be a great supplement to more concrete learning - at worst they replace it
with facile misunderstanding.

Finally - while students absolutely should be able to leverage the vast amount
of information we have available, a lot of it is misleading or just
intentionally wrong. We should be working hard now on figuring out how to give
kids tools to evaluate and analyse this. Raw information is easier than ever
to put your hands on, but that's never been particularly useful by itself.

So absolutely, let's leverage technology But lets not pretend that we have
viable replacements (yet?) for what we don't. A vital skill to teach these
days is the ability to sanity check whatever you are reading on line against
reality and multiple sources. If you don't become somewhat sophisticated about
navigating this sea o f information, you will be taken advantage of. _That_ is
one thing we should be concentrating on teaching - real skills, not parroting
the first thing you find on Wikipedia. Nobody learns those on screens alone.

The facts you came away from an education with have never been the point. The
point is to learn how to learn, how to test new ideas, how to verify
information, etc.

------
madrox
In my childhood, it was television that should be avoided. I arguably learned
more about nature by watching Lorne Greene's New Wilderness than I did in my
semi-rural home town. Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a real thing.

I've heard arguments like this my whole life. Not once has it turned out to be
true for me. That either means I'm an anomaly or this topic is widely
subjective.

~~~
CharlesW
> _I 've heard arguments like this my whole life. Not once has it turned out
> to be true for me._

I'm with you, and I'm surprised by the downvotes given the explicit caveat
"for me". I wouldn't have thought that many HN folks would think of this as
universal dogma.

------
jorjordandan
The fairly standard elementary school my daughter attends has little to no
screen time. I'm more likely to play with 3d modelling software or Minecraft
with my daughter at home - in addition to time we spend exploring tidal pools
or petting farms or at ballet classes. My younger daughter is reading and
writing simple words a full year before Kindergarten, thanks to engaging
educational apps. This story seems long on nostalgia but short on data. The
same concerns have been raised since Socrates
([http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html)),
and yet generation after generation learns to function. It's such a time
honoured cliche that even this response is a time honoured cliche.

~~~
konschubert
> My younger daughter is reading and writing simple words a full year before
> Kindergarten, thanks to engaging educational apps

This is going to be harsh, but I'm in the mood:

I don't think there is a strong correlation between the age at which somebody
spells his first words and later academic success.

I guess if you put in the time you can teach any reasonably smart three year
old a trick or two, but wouldn't they be able to learn that more quickly at
the age of 6 or 7?

One of the things that helped me a lot during my studies was the ability to
mentally vizualize complex topological situations. I don't think that's a
skill you get from educational apps or from being able to spell your name at 8
months.

~~~
mmt
> One of the things that helped me a lot during my studies was the ability to
> mentally vizualize complex topological situations. I don't think that's a
> skill you get from

I'm not convinced that's a skill you get from _anything_ , as opposed to an
inate talent (or set of talents). I'd want to see pretty strong evidence that
it could be taught to someone without the inate talent.

I'm pretty sure I'm someone with that talent, since I was never taught how to
do it.

~~~
dvtv75
> as opposed to an inate talent (or set of talents) [...] I'm pretty sure I'm
> someone with that talent, since I was never taught how to do it.

I'm sure that it's innate, because I can't visualize even simple things.

There have been a number of people who insist that they can teach me how to do
that. They always start off with "Picture a..." When I tell them that I can't,
I'm just being negative or uncooperative. Eventually, they get angry, throw
tantrums, insult me, and stomp off like a child because I'm doing everything I
can to prove them wrong, yet it never occurs to them that I simply can't do
it. No, I'm always lazy, negative, and am allowing a diagnosis to define me.

------
cheschire
It's obvious that a balance is appropriate. Meatspace engagements will provide
one level of training, but kids can't be exposed to everything. My kids will
never have the experience of running a farm, but I can give them a shadow of
the real thing by allowing them to play farm simulator.

~~~
oconnore
That’s not obvious. You are saying that “shadows of the real thing” have more
value than other ways they could spend that energy, which seems unlikely.

If you want to let your kids play video games, fine, but the hand waving to
support your personal intuition is blatant here.

~~~
SaltyMaia
It's obvious because it's clearly a false dichotomy... not everything maps 1
to 1 from real world to digital world, and things you learn in one may not be
learnable in the other.

Equating farm visitation to playing farming simulator is absurd, literally no
one would support that the digital counterpart is more absolutely valuable,
whatever that means (the onus of figuring that out is on you)

But sure, I'll go with an easy cookie cutter example just to fit your argument
- letting a kid play flight simulator is much easier, faster, and affordable
than enrolling them in a flight school. Maybe you're too poor to even consider
a real school, but playing a video game is still a valid way to see if flight
might be a genuine interest. Is it then a worthless endeavour?

Non-wasy examples would have you try to come up with direct alternatives to
abstact thinking ( "obviously me making some weird DIY things will be better
than playing a puzzle game" \- absurd)

Attacking the digital medium is absolutely not the way we'll figure out how to
move forward.

~~~
oconnore
> not everything maps 1 to 1 from real world to digital world

We are in violent agreement.

The point is not that digital learning is bad. It's that people are making
hand wavy assumptions about it being good without much evidence, without
considering alternatives, and without considering tertiary effects (e.g.
socialization).

Like, I don't even think I've seen a study comparing CS grads who either just
got a solid math education up until 18 versus kids who did their first python
app at 11. Yet lots of people are totally convinced that early access to
computers is associated with later success in the software industry. Is it? I
don't think either of us know. And if we don't even know that, does anyone
know what they're doing with iPad apps?

------
SketchySeaBeast
I absolutely believe that there should be physical elements to a child's
development, and that the world holds a lot to experience, and I get that
touching a cow is going to leave more of a lasting impact on a child than
being forced to learn what an adjective is, I just don't know a better way to
teach an adjective than rote memorization or a screen.

------
al_ramich
depends on what is defined by a screen. For example, you can imagine that kids
in school will be able to fully immerse themselves into education scenarios
(like being on a farm) through virtual or augmented tech. Smells and feel will
also be simulated. From an education perspective will it be much different.
Depends on how good AR/VR get... but also think of all the possibilities that
kids and students will get that they couldn't in the real world e.g. as quoted
in the article... kids will be able to go on virtual field trips, as well as
traveling back in time for history lessons or meeting Albert Einstein

[https://www.thetechedvocate.org/what-is-the-future-of-
virtua...](https://www.thetechedvocate.org/what-is-the-future-of-virtual-
reality/)

~~~
ska

       For example, you can imagine that kids in school will be able to fully immerse themselves into education scenarios (like being on a farm) through virtual or augmented tech.
    

You can imagine that, but not really for anyone who is a school age kid now.
Maybe their kids.

~~~
al_ramich
You are right, not today's kids but much sooner than their kids

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQbMP3I5Sk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQbMP3I5Sk)

~~~
ska
Maybe. These things often take longer that it looks like they will.

------
pnathan
> The gestalt of a farm transcends what pixels and speakers can convey.

Humanity has historically fled from working on farms (note the % of farm
workers over the last 300 years). Maybe before writing this sentence, question
your pastoralist presumptions.

I will also remark, without proof, that retreating from the contemporary world
gives your children a tailwind that they will need to overcome. The notion of
teaching computers to children is a notion, at its core, of guiding children
into engagement with the contemporary, preparing them to deliver their full
potential within the world we live in.

Assumptions that "nature is better", or "sweaty work is more moral than brain
work", or "face to face is better than distance" are founded upon certain
assumptions about the world that are not per se true. Just because one might
_feel_ better, or _feel_ more trusting, in certain environments does not make
what you feel to be rational or correct. Much like "wellness", juice cleanses,
or antivaxxing.

And, as counterpoint to the inevitable - it's _also_ true that f2p mobile
games and video short video recommendation systems are finely tuned addiction
engines that prey upon children - the mental & physical health issues are not
to be ignored. The author isn't going into those issues. And, limiting screen
time is a very common practice in recognition of that reality.

~~~
jdhendrickson
I'm replying to you as someone whose children attend coder dojo twice a week,
and they both have gtx 1070s despite being 7 and 9 respectively, this is
relevant as evidence that I truly believe giving my children the best leg up
in our society, requires them to have a a deep understanding of computers from
a young age.

Face to face is better than distance. To condense fact from the vapor of
nuance requires you to physically be in the same room with someone. We are
creatures who can transmit a tremendous amount of information in everything
from subtle facial expression to smell. All of that goes out the window over
remote work.

Nature is not better, but it is important. I spent every waking moment from
the time I got a computer at 19 until I turned 40 doing nothing but learning
about computers, be it networking, programming, or system administration and
the devops mutation that really just encapsulates a lot of what the grey beard
sys admins were already doing. It consumed my life.

I've taken time off thanks to my wife and her patience, and the boot strapped
company we started. Having gone camping now on state and federal lands, there
is something there that we need. I realize this is anecdata but I think the
reason these fallacious ideas have such appeal is a tiny kernel of truth.

Sweaty work is not more moral, but many times for me it's been more
satisfying, there is a reason I have a wood and metal working shop setup. The
moment when something I programmed works is absolutely euphoric, I've woken my
wife more than once with a war shout of victory at 4 am. It's ephemeral
though, there is always another problem nothing is ever truly done. When I
walk into my shop and see the work bench I made, it fills me with deep
satisfaction. A level of satisfaction I always found missing from my work no
matter how elegant or satisfying the design.

Apologies for the maudlin, meandering discourse, I'm on the ++ side of the
Balmer curve today.

~~~
pnathan
You're coming at this more nuanced and from a somewhat different angle than
OP.

I largely agree with you, given this angle. But, it's Friday after noon...

The physical provides a certain sense of satisfaction that is not obtainable
with the intellectual - and, frankly, vice versa. The OP makes a hard claim
for monism, which tends to be a very difficult sell to people who think very
hard about the notion of perceptions. Or, curiously enough, working
psychologists - they tend to be intensely dualistic, whether they profess it
or no. We exist within bodies, will we or nil we, however. And those bodies
_tend_ to feel good after running, or working out, or showering - or a wide
variety of other things, such as a glass of a fine Scotch.

I have... great doubts about face to face for many things. It's a _hotter_
medium in the McLuhan schema than, say, an email. You can forget what is said.
People get angry at each other. People can read emotions that are there - and
aren't! It's a slippery medium, and it's not a repeatable one. It's the best
medium for a date with your partner, however. And in a sense, what we're
really discussing here is _media_ \- and its effect upon a society. If, as
McLuhan said, the medium is the message - what is the medium that tablets
teach? What is the medium that a laptop teaches? A book? Face to face
instruction? And, finally, a farm? If we break this down to a media-message-
instruction approach, I think _that_ is the educational question. It is no use
to say, "well, a bookish person is drawn to books" \- you might as well say
"people who read books become bookish", and still tell the truth - it's a
circular cause and effect. What is the nature of the tabletish? That's an
interesting question we haven't answered. My opinion is that the Tablet as
constituted today, for children, teaches constant interaction, constant focus,
and destroys the body via bad posture & physical inactivity. Now, the Tablet
can also be used for other things. Note taking. Drawing. Reading. And as
adults, we find these less gamified things more powerful to our desires often.

I want to very carefully interrogate the concept of nature. I grew up
approximately 1 mile from B.L.M. land, near towering mountains and inscrutable
high mountain desert, and in my teens I hunted. Once I even shot a deer,
gutted it, and hauled it out with my dad. My mom loved her gardens, and I was
expected - and did - help out. I reference this to note that I literally had
my hands deep in, "nature". Is it more natural (better?) to shoot an animal in
the forest or to buy your meat from the grocery store? Or is it more natural
to raise your cow, butcher, _then eat_? What qualifies as _the natural_?
Lettuce from the forest? The garden? The roadside stand? the grocery store?
Where do we draw this line? Historically, we learn that "nature" itself is a
somewhat newer concept - it's not something standing outside of culture and
time. The idea of wilderness itself is conceptualized differently between
2018, 1950, 1900, 1850, and, say, 1700.

Let's interrogate further. Are you in nature in your front yard? A small park
down the street with a few trees, groomed grass, and a playground? What about
a large park with a stream and many trees? What if we stop grooming grass?
Take out the playground? What's going on here - when do we feel that we are in
nature - and when are we _not_ in nature? But - at _some point_ we can say
that "we are in nature", and people who "spend time in nature" to some degree
actually generally report being healthier and happier, apparently. Well, okay,
sure.

So this idea of "nature is beneficial" is really saying - _this experiential
concept that relates to embodiment_ is beneficial, but we haven't nailed down
what that concept _is_ \- only that we agree that this undescribed concept is
useful. Is this porn? Is this art? Do we know when we see it? Or can we
actually define what is going on here.

I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are natural; ergo, what we
create is natural, and _thus_ we need to really tighten down what we're trying
to say here.

Perhaps what we are saying is that an experience oriented around sense
experience & focused embodiment in a setting without buildings is pleasurable
and generally beneficial.

And now back to debugging a misbehaving system....

~~~
jdhendrickson
snip

 _The physical provides a certain sense of satisfaction that is not obtainable
with the intellectual - and, frankly, vice versa. The OP makes a hard claim
for monism, which tends to be a very difficult sell to people who think very
hard about the notion of perceptions. Or, curiously enough, working
psychologists - they tend to be intensely dualistic, whether they profess it
or no. We exist within bodies, will we or nil we, however. And those bodies
tend to feel good after running, or working out, or showering - or a wide
variety of other things, such as a glass of a fine Scotch._

I'm with you so far, in fact I'm fond of Plato's theory that humans are a
tripartite reason, λογιστικόν, spirit, θυμοειδές, and appetite ἐπιθυμητικόν.
Mental, physical, and spiritual, all need to be tended to. The first two are
self explanatory, but I like to think of spirit as having philosophy, some
might classify that under mental but I feel it stands on it's own.

 _I have... great doubts about face to face for many things. It 's a hotter
medium in the McLuhan schema than, say, an email. You can forget what is said.
People get angry at each other. People can read emotions that are there - and
aren't! It's a slippery medium, and it's not a repeatable one. It's the best
medium for a date with your partner, however. And in a sense, what we're
really discussing here is media - and its effect upon a society._

As an aside, how many times has someone taken something wrong because it was
in text? They couldn't tell the intention behind it. They didn't have the
benefit of body language, facial expressions and tone, so while I agree with
you to a certain extent and having worked remotely and enjoyed it a great deal
it's certainly not necessary for business most of the time, but there is
something lost, and it's something important.

 _If, as McLuhan said, the medium is the message - what is the medium that
tablets teach? What is the medium that a laptop teaches? A book? Face to face
instruction? And, finally, a farm?_

I'm not sure. Off the cuff I would say, tablets teach you to consume instead
of truly create. The tools for creation are more like lego in that medium than
a welder and hammer. A laptop to me is teaching you don't have to be married
to a place in meat space, you can also use it for minimalism. A book, for me
it teaches attention to a single thing and immersion, the opposite of the
tablet in many ways. Face to face instruction, can teach you fulfillment and
the age old bond between student and mentor. A farm will teach you so many
things that have nothing to do with farming, I can't even begin to describe
them all. Self reliance, thinking outside the box, mental toughness, dealing
with loss, how hope can carry you through dark times, how honestly sitting
around tapping on some keys in air conditioned buildings in a comfortable
chair isn't that hard. I suspect your oerarching point was leading me to a
point, rather than a case by case discussion, but honestly it was fun thinking
about what each of those mediums teach.

 _If we break this down to a media-message-instruction approach, I think that
is the educational question. It is no use to say, "well, a bookish person is
drawn to books" \- you might as well say "people who read books become
bookish", and still tell the truth - it's a circular cause and effect. What is
the nature of the tabletish? That's an interesting question we haven't
answered. My opinion is that the Tablet as constituted today, for children,
teaches constant interaction, constant focus, and destroys the body via bad
posture & physical inactivity. Now, the Tablet can also be used for other
things. Note taking. Drawing. Reading. And as adults, we find these less
gamified things more powerful to our desires often._

Tablets to me are the worst of all worlds, I have them, enjoy using them, and
recognize a skinner box when I see one. Deep creation, and control is nigh
impossible on that platform. I'm sure someone has managed it but it's a walled
garden another with yet another layer between you and your ability to exert
mastery over something you own.

 _I want to very carefully interrogate the concept of nature._

Nature is what we evolved in up until we began farming. At that point we tamed
nature and turned it into something else.

 _I grew up approximately 1 mile from B.L.M. land, near towering mountains and
inscrutable high mountain desert, and in my teens I hunted. Once I even shot a
deer, gutted it, and hauled it out with my dad. My mom loved her gardens, and
I was expected - and did - help out. I reference this to note that I literally
had my hands deep in, "nature". Is it more natural (better?) to shoot an
animal in the forest or to buy your meat from the grocery store?_

Absolutely it's more natural and yes in my opinion better to hunt your own
food and butcher it yourself. Being divorced from the cycle of death and life
doesn't change the cycle, it just lets us ignore the spiritual aspect of it.
I'm a hunter myself (bow, black powder, and on occasion rifle season as well).
I feel gratitude and a connection with the land when I hunt. From a purely
utilitarian stand point game meat is some of the healthiest for human
consumption, and after you've eaten back strap it's hard to go back to factory
farmed beef.

 _Or is it more natural to raise your cow, butcher, then eat? What qualifies
as the natural? Lettuce from the forest? The garden? The roadside stand? the
grocery store? Where do we draw this line? Historically, we learn that
"nature" itself is a somewhat newer concept - it's not something standing
outside of culture and time. The idea of wilderness itself is conceptualized
differently between 2018, 1950, 1900, 1850, and, say, 1700._

Cows are in my opinion not natural to begin with, if it can't survive long
without the hand of man then it's something we not only created, but propped
up. To answer the larger question, we are not in nature as long as we can
exert control. When the world is in control and we can do nothing but bend
before the wind or break, we are outside the demesne of men.

 _Let 's interrogate further. Are you in nature in your front yard? A small
park down the street with a few trees, groomed grass, and a playground? What
about a large park with a stream and many trees? What if we stop grooming
grass? Take out the playground? What's going on here - when do we feel that we
are in nature - and when are we not in nature? But - at some point we can say
that "we are in nature", and people who "spend time in nature" to some degree
actually generally report being healthier and happier, apparently. Well, okay,
sure.

So this idea of "nature is beneficial" is really saying - this experiential
concept that relates to embodiment is beneficial, but we haven't nailed down
what that concept is - only that we agree that this undescribed concept is
useful. Is this porn? Is this art? Do we know when we see it? Or can we
actually define what is going on here.

I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are natural; ergo, what we
create is natural, and thus we need to really tighten down what we're trying
to say here._

I have to strongly disagree with your last statement. Humans are natural in
some respects, but the things we create are not. We are driven to change the
natural to the domesticated. We are driven to change our natural social
interactions, which I define as innate, into things that facilitate our
removal from nature. With that said that's not necessarily a bad thing. We
went from natural to something else the moment we became self aware enough to
modify our own behaviors outside of the feedback loop provided by our
environment.

 _Perhaps what we are saying is that an experience oriented around sense
experience & focused embodiment in a setting without buildings is pleasurable
and generally beneficial.

And now back to debugging a misbehaving system.._

Yes, I agree, but it's also humbling, and something that grants you
perspective when it almost kills you, or makes you miserable for days at a
time. After the third day of rain just being dry is amazing. It's so easy to
lose perspective and yet, it's also simple to gain it if you are willing to.

Thanks for the conversation.

------
diogenescynic
Finland is like this— they allow kids to come to school and sort of pick their
interests and follow those interests to develop skills by actually working on
that craft/trade/subject in great detail. I think people would pursue
knowledge if it was more customizable to allow kids to follow their passion.

~~~
kohanz
Perhaps not the same, but reminds me of the Waldorf education philosophy [0].

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education)

~~~
diogenescynic
I looked it up and it’s actually Finland I was taking about. Michael Moore did
a good piece on it:
[https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs](https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs)

------
loourr
This feels equally true of classrooms as screens

------
Diaznash
That title can make a good pitch for AR/VR.

