RE: DSM: 2 questions part 2 - nature


Joseph Moore (joseph@ivorycc.com)
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:34:56 -0700


Without getting too far into it, I'd say that our methods of learning are
tied to particular assumptions about characteristics of the environment in
which we are likely to find ourselves. Sure, we'll apply our 'natural'
eagerness to learn no matter where we are, but our natural method developed
in response to a natural environmemnt of some kind. I'd further say, based
on all the evidence, that the natural environment for children is some kind
of extended family or tribe.

That's what I mean when I say school, even Sudbury Valley (and I love it)
are unnatural. More importantly, my question is if there isn't some kind of
hole in the model, a hole best filled by kids hanging around adults
relatives making a life and a living. This is an honest question - I don't
presume to know the answer.

Aside: In the world as we find it, too much parental time and attention is
not a real problem for very many kids. Rather, we've got kids raising each
other in day care, school, after school programs, camps, sports - hell,
could these kids pick their parents out of a lineup?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:33 EDT