Cheap shot: "discovered that youngsters aged ten to 12 were far more knowledgeable about TV characters than nature"
-- so how knowledgeable was nature about TV characters?
(did you mean "discovered that youngsters aged ten to 12 were far more knowledgeable about TV characters than they were about nature".)
When I was 10-12 I was probably more knowledgable about TV characters than I was about nature. Now, I'm probably more knowledgeable about TV characters than I am about nature.
I grew up mostly outdoors. I enjoy camping and bushwalking. I have a science degree, majored in biochemistry, but with a lot of time in the biology department.
I can tell the difference between birds and trees.
But I'd probably fail the test used in that study.
I'm pretty sure I can identify a bird as an owl without anyone around me contradicting me.
But I know if I dare to comment on Dr Who, people around will quickly tell me how wrong I am.
So clearly my knowledge of nature is greater than my knowledge of TV.
Nevertheless, I accept there are important reasons for developing a good understanding of nature: xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe
Bookmarks