Citation needed? I'm just describing the Montessori method, which was developed in the early 1900s. But maybe they were driving "sales revenue" then also?
back
2 comments
"In the real world, children are enticed by non-new and broken things just fine... until their parents, competitive peers, TV, or lovers insist they be more materialistic and wealthy signalling."
Tamana is describing a behavior known to anyone who have ever watched children play or explore the world. They start out interested in all kinds of stuff regardless if it's shiny or in perfect condition. Later, after much cultural conditioning, they might become adults who aren't interested in such things. The change is conditioned into them overtime. So, focusing on such attributes when training children is unnecessary given it's crap adults make up. If anything, children having some of their best experiences with heirlooms of varying quality might make them prefer such things in the future due to the mental association. So, Montessori method promoters themselves need to show some citations for making that a requirement.
Meanwhile, that should probably be stripped out of the method given there's no hard science backing it as necessary for children's learning. As I illustrated, it's even potentially harmful in predisposing them toward specific aesthetics and disposable goods.
Do you have kids? My toddler won't even eat a cookie that has a corner broken off.
I help raise many of them. They're picky on some things but not on others. Keeping them from grabbing and playing with stuff or going into random places is work. All of them, despite many dissimilar bloodlines, seem to have in common the willingness to explore something once motivated. It doesn't need to look perfect to motivate them although certain things seem to evoke a negative reaction. Greens on a plate or scary-looking insects come to mind. Exposure reduces this.
You can use aesthetics as a motivator for children. However, it being mandatory for anything they benefit from could make them very superficial. Show them something shiny they'll enjoy. Also, show them a worn-out book that has something they'll enjoy or learn from. Do both. Get them to focus on what something is rather than just appears to be.
Awesome, my kids would take the cookie out of my mouth as I chew it. I put that down mainly to nurture.
IME toddlers will refuse to touch something almost perfect aesthetically then pick up something else out of the dirt, a worm maybe, and pop that in their mouth.
Not sure we should be modeling pedagogies to foster toddler temperamentalility.
Why on earth would intorture myself by teaching my toddler to expect perfect cookies?
> Why on earth would intorture myself by teaching my toddler to expect perfect cookies?
You're not doing it intentionally or consciously. Children form habits from imitation – "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't really work for them.
They also are fantastic at picking up social cues from their environment, especially as toddlers. That includes media as well as strangers and family. These cues can be really subtle.
When my little sister was a toddler she would eat dirt, dead wasps and generally everything unable to outrun her.
Do you ensure your toddler gets perfect cookies, or do you wait it out until she relents?
Well, the early 1900s wasn't exactly an utopian golden age where people were not interested about stuff like sales revenue.
Do especially 'beautiful' items really entice children better compared to, well, maybe bit worn but in good condition and definitely not broken or dirty items, or utilitarian mechanical things that are in prime condition but designed the function, not looks, in mind?
I mean, many children are absolutely enticed by garbage trucks and tractors and stuff like that.