Subject:
|
Re: Cheap American shot (Was: NEW Mindstorms set shown (with picture!))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:15:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
231 times
|
| |
|
|
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> Personally I don't think that pigeonholing age ranges is appropriate in any
> case except for infants where choking is the primary fear. Older children do
> mature differently and at different rates (although that is NOT tide to
> culture) and putting age ranges on a box IMO is wrong because in general what
> companies do is take the lowest common denomonator to decide what ages to put
> on a box and this often keeps people from buying product for a child because
> they do not fit into the age range for the product. This both hinders the
> childs development and IMO encourages slower development to keep the kids in
> step with their peer group.
I'm a parent of children ranging from age 6 to 16, and I happen to
really appreciate suggested age ranges. Although all of my kids are
well past the age of putting things into their mouth that they could
choke on, I've observed that the youngest two (ages 6 and 8) find it
genuinely frustrating when they are unable to keep up to what their
older brothers do. A suggested age range on a box gives me an idea of
how difficult something is going to be, and I weigh that very heavily in
my consideration of gift-buying if I am not personally acquainted with
the product. I do not do this to censor what sort of things I get my
children, I do this because I know what my youngest kids are like, and I
know how frustrated they get when confronted with new challenges. I'd
love it if they were more willing to explore the unknown and try new
things, but it just doesn't seem to be in their personality, so I have
to judge carefully whatever it is that I am getting them. Age ranges
help that.
> > Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
