I could imagine that virtual environments do build some skills, but at the partial expense of others.

Both blocks and Minecraft require spatial reasoning Minecraft worlds, being larger, might even require more. However, young kids are still learning motor skills and sensorimotor integration, which will be very different when manipulating real blocks vs. an iPad. Playing with blocks could also offer different opportunities for practicing verbal or social skills, and needs a bit more imagination.

Figuring out the “best” amount of screen vs. real world time is tricky—-this sort of research is hard to do well—-and undoubtedly varies from kid to kid.

I agree that playing with real world toys like blocks still makes a lot of sense. I just think there's a lot to be gained from virtual worlds as well. If anyone has ever seen a very young kid play Minecraft, it's pretty amazing. Here's a popular link showing a three year old:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/1rcoqu/my_3year_...

Sure, but an iPad isn't a full 3D environment. And even what people call full 3D environments don't include all the stimulations of actual 3D real life, e.g. inner ear balance.

Some non-3D iPad game seems like a bad example to use in the article given the popularity of things like Minecraft. Why not discuss the impact 3D games have instead?

Also, playing with blocks doesn’t do anything to your inner ear.

Then there are things like sensatory feelings ... on your hands. Which can be different from a touchscreen..

There are experiments where they raise cats in an environment with only horizontal stripes or only vertical stripes. Cats raised with only horizontal stripes will avoid the rungs on a chair, but run into the legs. Cats raised with only vertical stripes will avoid the legs, but smack into the rungs with a mystified look on their face.

That old person already developed their spatial skills in an actual 3D environment. There is evidence that babies and toddlers need substantial experience to learn to see their environment properly.

In experiments, an infant will accept that an object transformed into a random other object while briefly out of their sight. They will not accept that one object turned into two objects.

This makes sense. A plate is flat from one angle of view and round from another. You change the angle of view, the shape radically changes. But it remains a single object.

Babies don't yet know which transformations make sense, so they will accept that a truck transformed into a clown toy. They will not accept that a truck transformed into two clown toys.

So I think you have that backwards. People with an already developed understanding of 3D spatial relationships based on lots of living in an actual 3D world can relate meaningfully to a virtual environment. This in no way supports the idea that simply seeing a representation on a screen of a 3D environment can help a developing child properly code up their spatial reasoning.

> There is evidence that babies and toddlers need substantial experience to learn to see their environment properly

This combined with the Lego talk above reminded me of having to constantly check my VCR slot for Lego bricks placed there by my toddler daughter.

We have 2 eyes and stereo vision... No matter what you put on a screen, it'll be 1-dimensional in the body's ability to discern distance and actual spatial awareness.