Fewer Toys Gives Kids a Better Quality of Playtime, Study Claims (nypost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from New York Post: Toddlers with just a few toys were more creative and focused than tots with more choices, according to the study, published in an upcoming edition of the journal Infant Behavior and Development. For the study, University of Toledo researchers gave kids under age 3 either four toys or 16 toys and recorded their playing habits, according to the report. "When provided with fewer toys in the environment, toddlers engage in longer periods of play with a single toy, allowing better focus to explore and play more creatively," researchers said. Fewer toys "promotes development and healthy play," they concluded. The bah humbug-boosting findings may be one reason to skimp on the stocking stuffers -- but parents have another option. Simply keep more toys in storage also helps rein in the attention of scatterbrained toddlers, researchers said.

Comments

Toys?

[msauve]

For the most part, our kids had more fun with the cardboard boxes the toys came in than the toys themselves.

Playing with a box encourages imagination. Playing with some intricate, structured toy just indoctrinates kids to fit in with societal expectations.

Re:Toys?

[PopeRatzo]

Growing up we had part of a Slinky. But I straightened it.

You must have come from a wealthy family. All we had was a rock and a stick, and I had to wait until my older sister got dysentery and died before I could play with them.

Re: Toys?

[eddeye]

Your heroes like Elon Musk certainly didn't die on the cross or rise from the dead, so ignore them and follow Jesus Christ.

Give Elon time, he's just getting started. I'm sure that's on his supervillain todo list.

Also, to be fair, Christ never built a bitching hot rod.

Re: Toys?

[alexo]

read the Bible, and live in the real world rather than the fantasy one you are creating.

The irony is strong with this one.

Re: Toys?

[sjames]

What if they want biblical action figures so they can act out the stories of the Bible with their friends?

Re: Toys?

[Joce640k]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

From your own link: "There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings"

Re: Toys?

[Opportunist]

Define a "kind" of animal and I'll show you why the whole Arc story is bullshit. Because however you define it, it blows the whole story out of water. Pun intended.

Not to mention that the whole "infallible god" stuff is going out the window no later than Genesis 6:6.

And between all that we have talking donkeys, talking snakes, people dying and coming back to life and people living for hundreds of years.

You're SERIOUSLY asking why this is considered a fantasy story? Fuck, Harry Potter has less magic and a more convincing plot.

Re: Toys?

[Opportunist]

Poe's Law is in full effect. And for a change, even in its original meaning.

Re: Toys?

[murdocj]

Bible stories aren't necessarily "true" but they provide some basis for discussion and thought. I'm not religious and I don't think God has delivered "his (or her) word" to any particular people, but I do believe that literature that has survived and influence people for 1,000s of years is worth a look.

Re: Toys?

[Opportunist]

Again, I'd be surprised if it was only one. Moreover, there is no need to be the same person, things get merged together all the time. It's even likely that the stories the bible compiles about Jesus are stories that are older and about a different messiah or preacher, much like the OT lent stories from older sources, like the story about the flood or the story of Moses.

Crucifixion was hardly a rare kind of punishment in those days, the Romans really loved putting people onto crosses for some odd reason. It was a really gruesome kind of death and it did impress people to see people die like this (ya know, TV wasn't that big a thing back then, they didn't have much for entertainment...), it was a handy tool to convince people it's better to not question Roman authority. Did they crucify someone named Jesus? Almost certainly they did.

Another thing that was certainly not in short supply in those days were religious leaders, preaching and wandering, wandering and preaching. Whenever times were rough, and Roman occupation isn't really a picnic, there was never a shortage of people pointing to religion as the solution for everything. Was one of them crucified? Certainly. Was one of them named Jesus? Again, pretty much certainly.

How many televangelists do we have today by the name of Michael? How many of them are caught cheating on their wives? Was one of them named Michael? Who cares, it makes a good story and if I need a Michael, just conflate that guy with one of the cheaters. Nobody outside the televangelist circles will care, and if I am the only "official" one keeping record, what I record will be gospel.

Any Roman sources would probably not be in a good enough shape to actually pinpoint "the" Jesus. They would probably record that some self proclaimed messiah was crucified, whether they record the name of "some barbarian" is a different matter. And if they did, whether they gave a fuck that they recorded something as insignificant as this properly is yet another.

In the end, there were certainly a lot of Jesus', a lot of prophets and a lot of crucifixions, and if you really want to believe, you'll nearly certainly find a few intersections in these three groups.

Re:Toys?

[Convector]

Oh, dysentery! Your family got one of those luxury diseases. We couldn't even afford the common cold virus. Dysentery implies you had access to water. We had to stand around all day with our mouths open hoping a stray raindrop would fall in.

I think this can be generalized

[Camel Pilot]

To include adults also... you know the saying -> The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

Another variation on the Paradox of Choice

[SlaveToTheGrind]

To a point, the less choices people have, the happier they are with whatever they choose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Another variation on the Paradox of Choice

[swb]

My theory (and this may just be own rehashing/reinvention of the Paradox of Choice) is that the ability to make alternative choices with near zero transaction costs leads to an unrealistic expectation of gratification.

With one VHS or one cassette and no easy way to obtain an alternative, I can either accept the gratification of something to watch/listen to or the alternative, which is nothing. At least in my mind, even a poor experience was better than no experience, even with the burden of some kind of buyer's remorse (ie, I should have rented a different movie or brought a different cassette).

With many choices, I expect that I will achieve an optimal level of gratification because I won't face any buyer's remorse and I expect that there is a choice which will achieve that optimal gratification. When it doesn't, I think the frustration of re-choosing and not achieving gratification masks the value of marginal gratification vs. no gratification.

It's the expectation that unlimited choice always equals optimal gratification that winds up being consistently disappointing.

New Toys

[Arzaboa]

When you have a never ending stream of new toys, the game is, "What's new."

When you have a couple of toys, the game is "Let's play with this and try not to break it."

--
Transformers, more than meets the eyes"

Re:Sounds obvious to me

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Studies about conventional wisdom are good because sometime conventional wisdom is wrong (e.g. geocentric universe models).

This is the same problem I have at work...

[Lodragandraoidh]

I'm forced more and more to multi-task, and have a wider range of choices to make in any given day on the job. This has increased the overall output only slightly - primarily because my work requires research to get to the bottom of many questions - and has certainly eroded the quality of that output immensely - forcing 2nd passes across some items that are in error.

I think sensory overload in all forms is a bad thing for human beings - regardless of their age.