[SaltyMaia]

It's obvious because it's clearly a false dichotomy... not everything maps 1 to 1 from real world to digital world, and things you learn in one may not be learnable in the other.

Equating farm visitation to playing farming simulator is absurd, literally no one would support that the digital counterpart is more absolutely valuable, whatever that means (the onus of figuring that out is on you)

But sure, I'll go with an easy cookie cutter example just to fit your argument - letting a kid play flight simulator is much easier, faster, and affordable than enrolling them in a flight school. Maybe you're too poor to even consider a real school, but playing a video game is still a valid way to see if flight might be a genuine interest. Is it then a worthless endeavour?

Non-wasy examples would have you try to come up with direct alternatives to abstact thinking ( "obviously me making some weird DIY things will be better than playing a puzzle game" - absurd)

Attacking the digital medium is absolutely not the way we'll figure out how to move forward.

[oconnore]

> not everything maps 1 to 1 from real world to digital world

We are in violent agreement.

The point is not that digital learning is bad. It's that people are making hand wavy assumptions about it being good without much evidence, without considering alternatives, and without considering tertiary effects (e.g. socialization).

Like, I don't even think I've seen a study comparing CS grads who either just got a solid math education up until 18 versus kids who did their first python app at 11. Yet lots of people are totally convinced that early access to computers is associated with later success in the software industry. Is it? I don't think either of us know. And if we don't even know that, does anyone know what they're doing with iPad apps?