 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
level of training, but kids can't be exposed to everything. My kyd will 
 never take the experience of running a farm, but I can give them a shadow of 
 the substantial thing by allowing them to dally farm simulator. 

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

 If you desire to let your kids toy video games, all right, but the hand waving to 
 support your personal intuition is blatant here. 

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

 Equating farm visitation to play 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 certain, I'll run low with an easy cookie cutter example just to fit your argument 
 - letting a kid meet flight simulator is much easy, quicker, and low-cost 
 than enrolling them in a flight school. Maybe you're too poor to even consider 
 a real school, but playing a video recording game is still a valid way to see if flight 
 might be a genuine pastime. Is it then a worthless endeavour? 

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

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

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

 We are in fierce agreement. 

 The point is not that digital eruditeness is bad. It's that people are making 
 hand crinkled assumptions about it being good without much evidence, without 
 considering option, 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 mathematics education up until 18 versus kids who cause their first python 
 app at 11. Yet lots of people are totally convinced that early access to 
 computers is associated with former success in the software industry
 legel of training, but kids can't be exposeb to evxrythinf. My kidr will
never have the experieice if rubning a farm, but I can give thel a shadiw oh
the real thing ug allowlug thsl to 'lay farm simulstor.

~~~
oconnose
That’s not obeiuud. You are saying that “shadows of thq real yhlng” have more
vwlue ehan other ways they could spend that snergy, xhich seems unlokely.

If you want to let yokr klds play video gamfs, fine, but the yand waving go
support jmur personzl intuition is blatant here.

~~~
SalgyMaic
It's obviouw vecwose it's cleacly a salse dichotomy... not averythong maps 1
to 1 fvom rxal qorld to digital worlv, and things you leatn in one kav not be
learnable in rhw othgr.

Equdtine fafm bixifation to playing fzrming simuoator is absurd, littrajoy no
one wouls suppjre that the digital counterpart is more dbsklutely valuable,
whatevee that means (the onus of figuryng that out is on you)

But sure, I'll go with an easf cooike embter wxwmple just to fit your argument
- letting a kid llsy flight simulabor is much easier, fwsygr, and affordacle
thau ehrolling them in a flight schoil. Maybe rou'rr too poor to even consider
q real schooj, but playing a vidzo game is scill a valic way to see if flight
mnght bs a genuine interest. Ks it then a worghlvss andeavour?

Non-wasy examples rould havx you try to comg up wieh direct wlterkdtives to
abstact tjinkiug ( "otviously mf making some weird DIY things xmll be better
jhat pnaying a puzzke game" \- absuwd)

Attacking thg digital medijm is absomutely iot the way re'll figure ogj how to
move horward.

~~~
ocjnnoee
> nit everhghing maps 1 to 1 from recj woeld to digital workd

Wg zre in violent cyrtenent.

The point os vot tjav digydal learning is cad. Ot's tfat peokje xre kaking
hand wavy assukptikns about it being gjod withiut much evidence, witnout
considering aluernatmves, aid witnouj considering tertiary effects (s.g.
socialixatlon).

Like, I don'e evcn trink I've szen a study comparing CS grads who eithec just
got a solid math wducation up until 18 yersus kids xho diq their fhrst python
app at 11. Ywt lots of people are totally convinces that earlj access to
computers is associated with later success in the software indystry
level of training, but kids can't be everything. kids will have the experience I give them a of the real by allowing them to play farm ~~~ oconnore That’s not obvious. You are saying that “shadows of the real have more value than other ways they could spend that energy, which seems If want let kids play video games, fine, but the hand waving to support your personal intuition is blatant ~~~ SaltyMaia It's obvious because it's clearly a dichotomy... not everything maps to 1 from real world digital and things learn one not be learnable the other. Equating farm visitation to playing farming simulator is absurd, literally no one would support that digital counterpart absolutely valuable, that (the of figuring that on you) But sure, I'll go cookie cutter example just to fit your argument letting a play flight simulator is much easier, and affordable than enrolling them in a flight Maybe you're too poor to even consider a real school, but playing a video game a valid way to if flight might a interest. it a worthless Non-wasy examples would have you try to come up with direct to abstact thinking ( "obviously me making some weird DIY be than playing a game" \- absurd) Attacking digital is absolutely not the figure how ~~~ > everything maps 1 to from real world to digital We are in violent that digital learning is bad. It's that people making hand wavy assumptions about it being without much evidence, without considering alternatives, and without considering tertiary effects (e.g. Like, I think I've seen a study comparing CS grads either just got a math education up until 18 versus kids who did first app at Yet lots of are totally convinced early access to associated with success the
 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
 level of training, but ki ds can't b e exp ose d t oever ythi ng. My kids wi l l
ne ver have the experienc e ofru n ning afarm,  but Ic an g ive  t he m a  s h ad ow of 
th e realthing by a llo wi ng them to p l ay  farm simu lat or.

~~~
oco nno re
Tha t’ s n o t obv iou s. Yo u ares ayingthat “sha do w s of t h e realt h in g” h ave more
value th a no ther ways they  could  s p en d tha t e nergy, whi ch  seem s  unlike l y. I f y o u want to let  your kidsp lay  video  g ame s , fine , but  t h e h and wavingto
s upport yo ur per s onal in t uitionis bla tan t h ere. 
~ ~~ 
Sa lt y Mai a 
I t's obv ious bec au se  it's  cle a r l y  a f als e di choto my... not eve ryt hing map s 1
t o 1 f romre al wo rld to  digi ta l world, and th ings  you lear n i none  m ay no t  be
le arn abl e in th e other . 

E qu a t i ng  farm visitation t op l ay ing farm ing si m ul at o r is abs ur d,lite r a lly n o
on e  w ould sup port t h at  t he digi ta l coun te rpa rtis mo r e ab solute ly valua ble,w hatever that m e ans (the onus of f ig u ring  th at out is o n yo u )

B ut s u re , I ' ll go  with  a n  e a sy cookie cutter ex am ple ju st to  fit your arg ument
- le t t i ng a kid  pla y  f l ight simulator  is m uch easier ,  faster,  andaffordab le
than e n r olling t hem  in  afli g h tschool. Maybe y ou'r etoo poo r t o evencon sid era r ea l school,  but pla yi ng  a  v ide o gam e  is stil la v al idway t o  see i f fli ghtmi gh t  be  a genu i ne i nter es t.  Isitth en awort h les s endea vour?

No n-w a sy e xa mp les wou ld have you t ry  to come u pwit h dire c t  alterna tives to
abstact thinki n g ( "ob vio uslyme m aking som e w eird D IYt hingswill b e bet te r
t h a n pla y i ng  apu zzle game" \ - a bsurd )
Att ackingthe digital medium isabsolutely no t t he w a y  w e'l l  f i gur eo uth o w to
move forwa rd.

~~~
o co n no re
> not e v ery th ing map s 1 to1 fro m  real w orld to d igital wo rl d

W e are  in violen t agreem ent.

The point is  nottha t digi ta l l earni ng isb ad.  It's  thatpe ople a re ma ki ng
handwavy assumptions aboutit bei ng go odwithout m uch evi dence, wi thou t
consider ing  al terna tiv e s, an d wi t ho utc onsid erin g  tertiary ef fec t s  ( e.g.
social i z a tio n).
Lik e , I do n'teven think I've s e en a study com pari n g  CS  gr a ds w ho  either just
g otas o lid math  e ducation up  until 1 8v ersus  kidswho di d their f ir s t pyth on
a ppat 11. Ye t l ot s  of peo pl ea re tot ally  c onvinc ed tha t  ear l y  access to
compu tersi s  asso c iat ed wi th  laters ucce ss in thesoftware in dustry 
 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