To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 11881
11880  |  11882
Subject: 
Re: Juniorization -- too simple even for kids?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:53:25 GMT
Viewed: 
1885 times
  
Mr L F Braun wrote:

> Hi Mike, John--
> 
> I miss the Space Datsville conversation, you know.  ;)  I'd build a Mars Polar
> Lander, but I'm afraid I'd just lose it.  At least I know how many newtons are in
> a pound of thrust (different probe, but still...).

Well, I plan to revive Datsville in space at some point!  I'm distracted
at the moment, because I'm actually working on a model, the first in
decades!  B^)

> Mike Poindexter wrote:
> 
> > I feel you are in err a bit on the idea of age recommendations for toys.  It
> > seems as though I see this happen with everyone.
> > 
> > "It says 5-7 on the box.  Our child is almost 4, but he is really bright."
> 
> In fairness to John and others, the age recommendation is based on several
> factors--one of which is "suitability" beyond the idea of liability.  I know some
> companies think solely of the liability angle, but I guess I'm enough of an
> optimist to think that TLC actually concerns itself with suitability and "play
> value."

I think that, once the kid is beyond the mouthing stage, there is no
significant liability issue with Lego.  Maybe I'm not creative enough to
be a product liability attorney.

> I know six- and seven-year-olds who are still enthralled with Duplo.
> They're not less smart, they just prefer the larger blocks and simpler models for
> some reason.  Hey, I'm 28 and I still can't get into Technic like some...

I use Technic parts for a few things here and there, but the main reason
that I don't get into Technic is that I like SOLID objects.  It's pretty
simple, actually.

> > The age recommendations are for safety, not how smart the kid is.  That is
> > why they have big fat duplo, then still big primo and you have to wait until
> > you are old enough not to place friction pegs in your mouth before you are
> > ready for technic.
> 
> Erk, I should give away all of my Technic pieces, then.  The friction pegs still
> get held in my mouth sometimes.  (Note to traders:  I do wash pieces before I send
> them out.  ;) )

[snip]

> > A little kid can't put a BURP in his mouth.  I have yet
> > to see people accidentally swallow a 1x4x5 wall.
> 
> Yes, many BURPs come right out of the mouths of small children.

LOL!  Wow!  And no smiley?  What were you thinking?

[snip]

> > > The Duplo hasn't been out of its box since the day the "hard Legos"
> > > arrived.  I'm ready to send it to the attic. (Actually, strike that --
> > > since it's nominally compatible with standard Lego, maybe I can use it
> > > for something???)
> > 
> > Yuck!  You would use those bricks that are contaminated with baby spit and
> > dried snot?  Run them through the washing machine first...
> 
> Er, Mike, do you have children?  :)  Baby spit and baby snot are NOTHING.

Hear, hear!

> John,
> DUPLO makes great support for large structures, if you top them with standard
> bricks.  Most people keep them to interior sections though.

This is exactly what I had in mind.  One of my son's Duplo parts is a 10
X 2 brick.  In standard Lego scale, this is a 20 X 4 X 2 brick.  Wow!
What a cool large beam!

> In the final analysis it's the parents' responsibility to make those choices.
> Maybe a 1x1 brick or tile is too small--but what about giving a child who's bored
> with DUPLO a lot of 2x4 bricks and larger plates?  I know I was playing with
> "standard LEGO" from the age of four on--but I was eased into the smaller, more
> technical pieces.

I don't think that there's anything more "technical" about a 1 X 1
plate.  But it is a little harder to manipulate.  Also, watching Spencer
I've learned something interesting about the larger plates -- assembling
them can take a degree of strength that we adults take for granted.

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Juniorization -- too simple even for kids?
 
Hi Mike, John-- I miss the Space Datsville conversation, you know. ;) I'd build a Mars Polar Lander, but I'm afraid I'd just lose it. At least I know how many newtons are in a pound of thrust (different probe, but still...). (...) In fairness to (...) (27 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)

8 Messages in This Thread:




Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR