However, I've never played this game with L before. It kinda sounds like fun.
Pet-mom to Squirt with FLUTD & Maya the deaf wonder dog .
Maybe you could let her know what his signs are for moving on and not wanting to participate in an activity any longer. And.or show her other things that your son enjoys doing and playing that will also be fun for her. That may at least give her more fun and show her that the one game isn;t all he van do and also help her to read his cues. Some people are not great at reading childrens cues, Hopefully she will then play a wider variety of games with him and allow him the opportunity to express his "skills" more,
I read the OP and was like... " playing a game with my child is going to squash his sparkly glitter!?"
Then I read followup post #15 and was like " It would annoy me if someone was pushing the game past my kid's interest level..."
Then I was thinking that if I were in that situation I would... Then I read the post by colsxjack and thought, well, this person already said it!
i don't want to argue on this thread and i don't see this as such. i think it's good to share perspectives, and that is what i am trying to do.
hitting your kid damages your kid. how you choose to educate your child isn't "damaging" in that sense, so that seems like kind of a loaded statement, you know? let's back off that a little bit and if you want to talk about WHY some of us think it's not a great choice for the way we want to parent/school/unskool/whatever, we can.
for me, it's not the greatest idea, as i have done a good bit of reading and research and formal education at the graduate level about different instructional methods and learning styles and child development. i really like what i see from styles like montessori, where a child tends to stay motivated to learn rather than learn to be led, if that makes any sense. i think really the problem with modern public education is that it sets up a paradigm where a child loses motivation and curiosity. i think that letting the child direct playtime and learning stimulates and encourages curiosity, and lets the child realize intrinsic motivation. that's also the problem that i personally have with reward systems-- that they produce a habit of expectation of reward or praise rather than letting knowledge and learning be the reward. education is a process that is never completed, and by breaking it up into little bits and giving out treats or "good job" kinds of things, it really shifts what i see as a child's natural tendancy to explore and turns it into learning by habit or learning when led.
but i think it takes a good bit of conditioning to quell and squash curiosity and eagerness, too, and that some kids will continue to thrive no matter the conditions placed on learning, but in my mind, why go there?
Thanks for attempting to explain this in a way that I can kinda understand. :) Do you (and this is also for ContentMama, holothuroidea, et al) see this as an either/or situation? For instance...in the "So Big" game, it's led by the caregiver....so according to your philosophy "So Big" might fall into the category of hindering the child's natural curiosity and suppressing the realization of his intrinsic motivations. I can actually kinda wrap my mind around that, for the first time in this thread. But, do you believe that (what I'm assuming is) a few minutes of this game in the course of a day full of all different kinds of interactions will really have this much of a detrimental effect on a child?
I could see how that might be a concern if, for instance, a reluctant child were forced into playing "So Big", or any other kind of similar game, for hours/days on end.