My wife and I are currently in the midst of a debate regarding the type of toys and books we should provide our children. She advocates for the usage of toys and books that portray a realistic representation of the world, including animals. This presumably means no anthropomorphic or cartoonish animals, only ones that mimic their real-life counterparts.<p>On the other hand, I believe that a balance of realistic and fantastical elements in our children's playthings can be beneficial. In my view, while it's important for children to have an accurate understanding of the world, we should also foster their creativity and imagination through exposure to made-up and imaginative elements.<p>Given our ongoing debate, I would be grateful if anyone could provide recommendations for resources or research studies that address this topic. I'm interested in approaches that might support either viewpoint, or suggest an entirely different perspective.<p>Thanks!<p>(Edited by GPT4 for clarity)
Never before in history have parents obsessed like this over how a child plays.<p>Play is unstructured for a reason: so that children can go off on tangents, exploring their world and discovering new and interesting things, exercising their creativity in many ways that won't work, but gaining a deeper understanding of how things really do work in the process of their experimentation. The more you interfere, the more you stunt that kind of growth. As you artificially cut off more and more avenues, you implicitly teach your child not to even try, but rather meekly accept the uninspired realities presented by their betters.
Kids benefit more from the toys and books <i>they</i> enjoy.<p>Feel free to supplement with what you think they ought to have access to, but in the end it's their childhood.<p>(perspective, not study, sorry)
A different perspective.<p>Young children benefit most from treating them like people. Autonomous people.<p>The time you spend optimizing books and toys is time you don't spend on what matters.<p>Look at it this way, you will make some good choices, you will make some not so good choices, but most of your choices won't make a difference at all because they will be little choices and a child's life is more massive by many orders of magnitude.<p>I mean what is a kid? You're a decade or so away from puberty and the point where their friends become more influential than you. Picture books and plushy aesthetics are an ordinary flap of butterfly wings.<p>But don't worry you've got a decade to grow into the job and in ten years you will have a better perspective on what matters. And in two decades they will be adult kids and you will have a role in their adult scaled problems...assuming of course you are laying the groundwork for that.<p>Fortunately, you will have to make a concerted effort to screw that up (and unfortunately there are parents who do (no implying you are one of them)).<p>Sit on the floor and play beside your child, and with them sometimes, and against them as they get older. That's what matters to them and to you.<p>Sure someone may have written a master's thesis on the bullshit debate you are having because they needed to write a master's thesis in order to graduate. But there's no objective "kids benefit more" from X because X is one an infinite number of factors.<p>And because running a double blind long term study would be grossly unethical.<p>Good luck.