Cijadrachon <cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> (Maybe SKIP.)
Naa - quite interesting stuff was there.
> >>The more stimulation you can provide to a child,
> >> the better, and the earlier you provide it, the better.
> I do not believe so.
> I am glad that my parents did not push me the whole times with
> stimulations,
Some people (scientists?) believe that also overstimulation can damage.
I do believe in a healthy balance between internal (own creativity) and
external stimulation.
> There is a book where a policeman tries to get a girl named Pippi to
> (if I recall right) go into a home for children and go to school
> there.
Yes, Astrid Lindgren's "Pippi Långstrump (Longstocking)".
> She asks him if she can take the horse (or was it the monkey?) along,
Cannot check now, but I think she did take the monkey, and rode into
class, but the teacher made her take the horse at least outside.
Not that it is important for your point.
> ... a neat joke about some police person proud of abstract
> knowledge and a sea-travellers daughter having been to different
> places, having learned letters from another one on board of her
> father's ship but not knowing how to spell to someone's rules but just
> adding lettters so that they make the words, and being more into what
> she likes for herself than into what others like for her.
The book does make many good points about education.
> >regardless, i do agree that enriched environments are an advantage.
> I prefer them natural.
> And where they are natural and no artificial ranges / stuff,
> usually there is less cancer and a lot of other disturbances less.
and less allergies... but perhaps more starvation.. and superstition...
and perhaps more epidemies... if we go natural enough. But mostly you
are right here, although I have not read what this discussion was about
originally.
Dag Stenberg
