And no matter what side you argue, that kind of logic should enrage anyone. It is a pretty weak thing to do, trying to link broad attitudes towards unrelated things, and imply a causal connection that even with the best research would be tenuous at best. We're definitely not hippies and we feed our daughter what we eat: mostly home-cooked meals with a very diverse menu sampling from a smattering of cultural styles and cuisines. Do we do that because we think it makes us better parents: no. But we think exposure to a broad sampling of flavours will enrich her life now and later, and save all of us from the stereotypical doom of "kids only eat pizza and hamburgers" mentality in the coming years. In fact, I'd argue if only for that fact, it has little to do with parenting and much more to do with my own selfish desire to consume as little "boring" food as possible. But that's just me.
Oddly enough there was a CBC documentary about that a few months back. It was called something like _The Disappearing Male_ and was trying to link (in the vague way that documentaries tend to do) both a slight reduction in male population and also a decrease in general sperm counts in adult males with the rise of the petrochemical industry and our use of consumer chemicals. It was an interesting hypothesis, and I keep thinking I should do more reading on the topic so I could at least have some evidence either way.
Thanks! Glad you like it. I'll have a look.
Hi Kate! I know your grief. We've got some fairly tuned-in local toy stores around here, but the (quote-quote) "educational stuff" is still very rare. Thanks for saying hi, and let me know if is anything I can do to help get the word out. -Brad
Actually that's an interesting point. My mother -- grandma -- who teaches elementary school suggested the other day that I stop saying the alphabet and instead say the letter sounds. Of course, I the smart-ass reminded her that some of the letters had more than one sound and went on to demonstrate. But yeah. What is the point of learning the alphabet names at all, really?
By the way, does anyone know why where the "alphabetical order" came from?
Thanks Seth. I like the analogy, and you're probably spot on with the analysis. I didn't mean to imply that it was a wrong way to learn. In fact, I'd wager if I looked at a wider sample it's probably fairly common. But I think I under-articulated the point I was going for -- that there lacks much (as you suggest) structure or meaning to the information at this point as she learned raw data -- and thanks for calling me out on that.
Desiree is interviewing Brian Mason tonight. That should shed some more "skeptical" light on the topic. 6PM on Skeptically Speaking (CJSR)
http://skepticallyspeaking.com/ (see "speaking up" in the sidebar.)
That said, I doubt I'll find much. The links are fairly speculative.
Actually, I first heard it as the analysis of the political correspondent on CBC Radio Edmonton yesterday morning. I dug around a little, and while nothing was written was tying it direct to him, the radio's interpretation was that backing this bill was the same group of politically active but religiously motivated folks who nearly got Morton elected and that now -- working with Morton or not -- they had their hands in on this. If I can find an article, I'll post it.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus