How about someone making a website that groups films and games together in terms of actual content? Mr.Mac: Assuming guns are at least as difficult to wield and use as a biggish hammer, would you get much of a work-out from an arcade game that used pneumatics to simulate the real force?
Honestly, I would tell them the biological realities of procreation, and warn them that deeper understanding of the subject will have to wait until their brains have reached the point where it can wrap the mind around the more messy concepts.
And that is what is being suggested about the video games. There is a difference between talking about a subject with your child (like violence or sex) and it is a completely different thing to SHOW your child that act. Have fun trying to get that kid to sleep for the next month.
I grew up without a television, and I feel from personal experience that I am a lot more sensitive to depictions of violence and brutality. There is a difference between telling your child truthfully about war and violence, information I was exposed to by reading books and the news, and showing them exploitative fictions involving them. However, games like GTA glorify violence and rape, in the same way splatter movies glorify gore. There is a difference between comprehending these things on a realistic level and enjoying them as entertainment. I watch my fare share of violent movies and my sister is a total FPS nut, but I feel that we didn't start playing/watching these sorts of things before we were mature enough to deal with them. I'm not saying that it will make kids murderers, but I think until they comprehend the realistic ramifications of violence in the world, they are not ready for the cavalier way in which GTA presents these problems. That said, if you are old enough to enjoy the game knowing what it is in comparison to the real world, the same way I enjoy private eye novels and film noir (which often romanticize gangsters and the mob), then go nuts. GTA is a very well put together game.
I played my fair share of Mario Brothers and Zelda for the NES, but I have never been under the impression that eating mushrooms will give me the ability to shoot fireballs
I must say though that my father is a big martial arts movie lover, and I watched many with him as a kid. Watching those types of movies did instill a desire to learn martial arts, but never as a practical application in real life.
After my friends and I watched The Last Dragon in first grade, we kicked the shit out of each other for weeks.
Honestly, I would tell them the biological realities of procreation, and warn them that deeper understanding of the subject will have to wait until their brains have reached the point where it can wrap the mind around the more messy concepts.
And that is what is being suggested about the video games. There is a difference between talking about a subject with your child (like violence or sex) and it is a completely different thing to SHOW your child that act. Have fun trying to get that kid to sleep for the next month.
Ah, thank you for pointing out a lapse on my part. I forgot to include the visual aids.
I think the main issue here is that these children are just not prepared for those kinds of visuals. We all know that it's inevitable that these kids will eventually be exposed to them, but we should still try and keep them from experiencing them at such a young age. I'm not talking about keeping children indoors for the fear of them hearing coarse language, and generally just trying to protect them from the outside world. So, it's a matter of keeping the balance between preventing them from seeing things that are too graphic for too young an age, and allowing them to mature and grow their independence.
Consider the example here. We're talking about a child in KINDERGARTEN watching very graphic depictions of sex and violence, and the parents have control over this. If the family was in the subway, and this kid saw GTA being played on some guy's PSP, that's that. However, this boy was playing GTA in their house, with this child who is OBVIOUSLY sitting and watching. That's a case where they have complete control over what this child is watching, and they let it happen. As for the parents saying that "it's not real," that argument may hold true with someone who is, say... 10 or older, but we're talking about a 4 or 5 year old! He can't make the distinction between reality and fantasy!
You shouldn't protect the kid from outside influences, but when it's being played in your house, it's a different issue. Would you watch porn with a 5 year old sitting on the couch with you? And let's also say that you're not explaining what's happening, since that seems to be the case that kage_rod described. Even if you were to explain it afterward, the kid would be frightened out of their mind while watching it, and would probably have nightmares for a good long time. Is that good parenting? When the kid is 11, 10, maybe even 9, it's more understandable, but you shouldn't be in a rush to "get this kid ready for the outside world" when they're five.
Honestly, I would tell them the biological realities of procreation, and warn them that deeper understanding of the subject will have to wait until their brains have reached the point where it can wrap the mind around the more messy concepts.
And that is what is being suggested about the video games. There is a difference between talking about a subject with your child (like violence or sex) and it is a completely different thing to SHOW your child that act. Have fun trying to get that kid to sleep for the next month.
Ah, thank you for pointing out a lapse on my part. I forgot to include the visual aids.
For a 4 year old? Katsu... four year old children barely grasp ideas like blue and yellow make green, why would you try and teach them, let alone graphically expose them, to concepts beyond their understanding that might leave them psychologically scarred? I am not saying you shouldn't present them with challenging concepts, but why do so in such an over-the-top and graphic way? At four I knew that hitting was bad, it hurt me, it hurt other people, and that when I chose to hit, it had both direct and indirect consequences. What beyond that does a 4 year old need to know about violence?
Katsu... four year old children barely grasp ideas like blue and yellow make green, why would you try and teach them, let alone graphically expose them, to concepts beyond their understanding that might leave them psychologically scarred?
To what extend would the damage be? What exactly would be the damage? How would said damage manifest itself? None of you have a shred of evidence to make a decision on how such images effect the psyche of a child. You guys are just guessing and it's ridiculous. learnscienceplzkthxbai.
NO, I have worked with children. Show them something violent, and they often get scared and can't sleep. That is one, very direct effect.
Anecdotal evidence blah blah blah blah...
Okay, like I said before, let's see you put your kid to bed at night after watching a violent movie. Also, look for any behavioral changes in their social interaction and in their imaginative play time. You know that in order to get the evidence from a major study that you would have to expose incredibly young children to graphic violence and sex. You think that is responsible and worth any possible lasting problems for those children? Furthermore, you would rather have research dollars go into that than, I don't know, curing a disease. You can do what you like with your 4 year old. I am just saying it seems unnecessary to expose them to graphic violence and sex in order to educate them about that subject, particularly as there is POTENTIAL for damage that would otherwise not be incurred.
Okay, like I said before, let's see you put your kid to bed at night after watching a violent movie. Also, look for any behavioral changes in their social interaction and in their imaginative play time.
All I'm saying is that you can't make all these claims about "oMG it's damages the children" when you have no empirical evidence to support you. How do you know your child was upset from the movie? How do you know it wasn't some other incident that occurred earlier in the day? What if he got yelled at by his teacher? Or maybe he got bullied by a student?
You know that in order to get the evidence from a major study that you would have to expose incredibly young children to graphic violence and sex. You think that is responsible and worth any possible lasting problems for those children?
I'm not one to comment on experiment methods for said research, I'm not a psychologist.
Furthermore, you would rather have research dollars go into that than, I don't know, curing a disease.
Wait, aren't you the guys who are saying this is a big deal? If it's such a big deal, wouldn't it be better to actually understand what's going on? I guess it's just easier to be afraid of the boogey man than actually go in a find out if it really even exists.
You can do what you like with your 4 year old.
When did I say you should expose four year olds to violent media? All I'm asking for is a reasonable response to the situation and research into the actual evidence.
I am just saying it seems unnecessary to expose them to graphic violence and sex in order to educate them about that subject, particularly as there is POTENTIAL for damage that would otherwise not be incurred.
How do you know such a potential even exists? Wouldn't you rather know for sure from research? Wouldn't you rather believe in God because of the POTENTIAL that you could burn in hell? Yeah, great argument.
I'll have you know that I was perfectly calm before people started getting all riled up. I made one comment and was suddenly attacked because I was a "OMG CHILD ABUSER". Maybe people shouldn't start a shit storm if they can't handle it.
I'm with Water is Poison, the science is definitely out on this issue. It seems to be common sense that it causes harm to kids if they are exposed too much. On the other hand, it seems harmful to prevent them from exposure as well. We really have no clue what the "correct amount" of exposure is, and science is needed to figure it out.
If you want to stay anecdotal, I can tell you what I have seen from both being a kid and working with them. What I have seen is that everything comes down to the parents and the individual kid. The apple does not fall far from the tree. Good parents make good kids, and those kids aren't turned bad or damaged by being exposed to content. Bad parents make bad kids, and they will be bad regardless of what content they are exposed to.
The effect I do see violent/sexual content having on kids is it gives them ideas. Let's look at pro-wrestling for example. Take a good kid and a bad kid. The good kid will watch it, and keep being good. The bad kid will do it, and then he'll get the idea to perform wrestling moves on people and things. The bad kid was already the kind to be violent in the first place, the content just gave him ideas about how to express that violence. Thus, to the naked eye it appears as if the content was the influence that caused the bad behavior. In reality, the bad behavior already existed, and the content just molded the bad behavior into a different shape. In cases where the bad behavior was not already present, the content had no effect.
The only other negative effect of exposing kids to violent and/or sexual content I have seen is when they do not understand it, or are incapable of understanding it. Some of you have already alluded to these circumstances. If a kid watches a scary movie, they will be scared if they are still not capable of understanding that it is not real. If a kid watches a sexy or violent movie, they might misinterpret the realities of sex and violence if they are not yet capable of understanding them.
However, therein lies the conundrum. I've known kids as young as 2nd graders who are mature and have very mature understandings of topics such as sex and violence. I've also met people in college who have incredibly immature grasps on these ideas. One the one hand it makes sense that exposure coming too early will result in misunderstanding. On the other hand, lack of exposure seems to delay understanding until it's too late. On one hand you have kids mimicking violent acts they don't understand are bad. On the other hand you have college kids drinking, smoking, fucking, and gambling their brains out because they've been banned from doing so throughout their childhood.
We definitely need to do some scientific research to figure out the real truth behind these phenomena. Regardless of all that, I definitely think this is not an area where the government should step in. If we don't know what the answer is, we should definitely not be restricting free speech and expression without any evidence to back up that decision.
Andrew, I was reacting to Katsu's generalization. Not the initial incident in the post. Katsu and I are old friends with some differing ideas on child rearing. I am NOT saying that having your extremely young child watch violent video games will damage them, I am saying it is unnecessary and has the potential to frighten and confuse extremely young children with little to no educational benefit.
If a kid watches a scary movie, they will be scared if they are still not capable of understanding that it is not real. If a kid watches a sexy or violent movie, they might misinterpret the realities of sex and violence if they are not yet capable of understanding them.
I agree with Scott's thinking on this point. It's not about the age, but about the level of maturity. Kids will be able to handle it at some point, but that point is different for everyone. It's kind of like when I started drinking wine at dinner. There was a point when I was a older teenager, and I gradually started joining the adults as they shared chianti. It was this kind of unspoken thing, kind of like watching R movies and staying out at night, without any age restrictions arbitrarily imposed.
Andrew, I was reacting to Katsu's generalization. Not the initial incident in the post. Katsu and I are old friends with some differing ideas on child rearing. I am NOT saying that having your extremely young child watch violent video games will damage them, I am saying it is unnecessary and has the potential to frighten and confuse extremely young children with little to no educational benefit.
Yeah, Katsu and Scott antagonize you all the time with their ideas for child tormenting.
If a kid watches a scary movie, they will be scared if they are still not capable of understanding that it is not real. If a kid watches a sexy or violent movie, they might misinterpret the realities of sex and violence if they are not yet capable of understanding them.
I agree with Scott's thinking on this point. It's not about the age, but about the level of maturity. Kids will be able to handle it at some point, but that point is different for everyone. It's kind of like when I started drinking wine at dinner. There was a point when I was a older teenager, and it just gradually started joining the adults as they shared chianti. It was this kind of unspoken thing, kind of like watching R movies and staying out at night, without any age restrictions arbitrarily imposed.
I completely agree on this as well. I just don't think GTA should be used as an educational tool. If you want to teach someone of any age about violence, this is certainly NOT the best visual aid available.
I am NOT saying that having your extremely young child watch violent video games will damage them, I am saying it is unnecessary and has the potential to frighten and confuse extremely young children with little to no educational benefit.
I can agree with that. Like I said above, I believe it's around the ages of 9-10 when kids start getting smart about this stuff.
I am just saying it seems unnecessary to expose them to graphic violence and sex in order to educate them about that subject, particularly as there is POTENTIAL for damage that would otherwise not be incurred.
How do you know such a potential even exists? Wouldn't you rather know for sure from research? Wouldn't you rather believe in God because of the POTENTIAL that you could burn in hell? Yeah, great argument.
That is an incredibly bad analogy. I can verify that the GTA video game exists, whereas I have no verification that God exists. Back onto the GTA issue: There is anecdotal evidence, which, as you say, is NOT to be taken as gospel, but it does shed some common sense doubts on the soundness of showing a 4 year old a violent video game. Please note that I am not saying that it will definitely harm the child, nor am I saying that violent video games cause children to be violent. I am just saying it is an unnecessary act (no kid NEEDS to see/play GTA in order to survive), so why would I thrust a child into that situation with NO benefit and even the slightest potential at a negative outcome. Best case scenario, it is a neutral outcome, so what is the point? On another point: How can you justify GTA as an education tool on violence for a child. Please elaborate.
On another point: How can you justify GTA as an education tool on violence for a child. Please elaborate.
I never said it was an educational tool. Video games are a massive part of our culture and will be increasing in their influence over the next few years. These games are targeted towards kids no matter what way you look at it. What I originally stated that if a kid asks about a game, in this case GTA IV, it should be the parents responsibility to discuss it with their child, perhaps even play it with them. If you play the game with them or just watch them play it and discuss it, you can put it in context. There is no way you can ever prevent a child from ever seeing a game because more than likely they will see it at a friends house or some other place. Even then, if you experience it with them in a setting you control, you take away the mystique of the game. The more adults prevent kids from doing/watching things, the more those kids desire to experience it.
I am just saying it is an unnecessary act (no kid NEEDS to see/play GTA in order to survive), so why would I thrust a child into that situation with NO benefit and even the slightest potential at a negative outcome. Best case scenario, it is a neutral outcome, so what is the point?
See, this is what I'm talking about. WHEN DID I EVER SAY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR CHILD TO DO SOMETHING? NEVER! READ WHAT I FUCKING POST PEOPLE!I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THEY NEED TO SEE IT IN ORDER TO SURVIVE!
A question to those who think it's okay to show 5 year olds mature stuff they won't be able to grasp: What do you remember from your life when you were 5 years old? My probably correct guess is nothing, or a very skewed memory compared to memories you create at your current age. Even if you tell your child all the things you suggest, doing a 'good' job at parenting, all the child will get from it is fear. Most mature graphical things play on the feelings of shock and intimidation to entertain. Children are not able to think rationally (enough) to be able to handle the content, their brains have not yet developed enough. It's as simple as that.
I am just saying it is an unnecessary act (no kid NEEDS to see/play GTA in order to survive), so why would I thrust a child into that situation with NO benefit and even the slightest potential at a negative outcome. Best case scenario, it is a neutral outcome, so what is the point?
See, this is what I'm talking about. WHEN DID I EVER SAY YOU SHOULD FORCE YOUR CHILD TO DO SOMETHING? NEVER! READ WHAT I FUCKING POST PEOPLE!I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THEY NEED TO SEE IT IN ORDER TO SURVIVE!
And you wonder why I get upset?
Where did I say that you said a child "needs" to see it? Katsu suggested that he would use it as a visual aid to insturct a child on teh subject of violence. That is all. I was just defining a necessary act v. an unnecessary act. Please don't take this so personally, and please stop addressing things to other posters so personally. Maybe then you will not get so upset.
I was just defining a necessary act v. an unnecessary act. Please don't take this so personally, and please stop addressing things to other posters so personally. Maybe then you will not get so upset.
When you use something I wrote as the basis for your post, yes I will assume you are directing it to me unless you say otherwise.
I am not upset. I understand that this is a forum, and that if we met in person, we would probably respect each other (not that I don't respect you as it is, you seem to have sound reasoning, and make some strong points), and possibly like each other. I am not offended that you have a different opinion than mine, nor am I offended when you implied not only in this thread, but in another, that I do not base my opinions on facts and reason. I am really not.
I am not upset. I understand that this is a forum, and that if we met in person, we would probably respect each other (not that I don't respect you as it is, you seem to have sound reasoning, and make some strong points), and possibly like each other. I am not offended that you have a different opinion than mine, nor am I offended when you implied not only in this thread, but in another, that I do not base my opinions on facts and reason. I am really not.
I'm not honestly upset either. I just can be quite vitriolic when I write and debate.
I am not upset. I understand that this is a forum, and that if we met in person, we would probably respect each other (not that I don't respect you as it is, you seem to have sound reasoning, and make some strong points), and possibly like each other. I am not offended that you have a different opinion than mine, nor am I offended when you implied not only in this thread, but in another, that I do not base my opinions on facts and reason. I am really not.
I'm not honestly upset either. I just can be quite vitriolic when I write and debate.
That is unnecessary, why would you do that? What benefit does it have?
Comments
Mr.Mac: Assuming guns are at least as difficult to wield and use as a biggish hammer, would you get much of a work-out from an arcade game that used pneumatics to simulate the real force?
Just sayin'.
So, it's a matter of keeping the balance between preventing them from seeing things that are too graphic for too young an age, and allowing them to mature and grow their independence.
Consider the example here. We're talking about a child in KINDERGARTEN watching very graphic depictions of sex and violence, and the parents have control over this. If the family was in the subway, and this kid saw GTA being played on some guy's PSP, that's that. However, this boy was playing GTA in their house, with this child who is OBVIOUSLY sitting and watching. That's a case where they have complete control over what this child is watching, and they let it happen. As for the parents saying that "it's not real," that argument may hold true with someone who is, say... 10 or older, but we're talking about a 4 or 5 year old! He can't make the distinction between reality and fantasy!
You shouldn't protect the kid from outside influences, but when it's being played in your house, it's a different issue. Would you watch porn with a 5 year old sitting on the couch with you? And let's also say that you're not explaining what's happening, since that seems to be the case that kage_rod described. Even if you were to explain it afterward, the kid would be frightened out of their mind while watching it, and would probably have nightmares for a good long time. Is that good parenting? When the kid is 11, 10, maybe even 9, it's more understandable, but you shouldn't be in a rush to "get this kid ready for the outside world" when they're five.
Let the kid enjoy their youth.
You know that in order to get the evidence from a major study that you would have to expose incredibly young children to graphic violence and sex. You think that is responsible and worth any possible lasting problems for those children? Furthermore, you would rather have research dollars go into that than, I don't know, curing a disease. You can do what you like with your 4 year old. I am just saying it seems unnecessary to expose them to graphic violence and sex in order to educate them about that subject, particularly as there is POTENTIAL for damage that would otherwise not be incurred.
If you want to stay anecdotal, I can tell you what I have seen from both being a kid and working with them. What I have seen is that everything comes down to the parents and the individual kid. The apple does not fall far from the tree. Good parents make good kids, and those kids aren't turned bad or damaged by being exposed to content. Bad parents make bad kids, and they will be bad regardless of what content they are exposed to.
The effect I do see violent/sexual content having on kids is it gives them ideas. Let's look at pro-wrestling for example. Take a good kid and a bad kid. The good kid will watch it, and keep being good. The bad kid will do it, and then he'll get the idea to perform wrestling moves on people and things. The bad kid was already the kind to be violent in the first place, the content just gave him ideas about how to express that violence. Thus, to the naked eye it appears as if the content was the influence that caused the bad behavior. In reality, the bad behavior already existed, and the content just molded the bad behavior into a different shape. In cases where the bad behavior was not already present, the content had no effect.
The only other negative effect of exposing kids to violent and/or sexual content I have seen is when they do not understand it, or are incapable of understanding it. Some of you have already alluded to these circumstances. If a kid watches a scary movie, they will be scared if they are still not capable of understanding that it is not real. If a kid watches a sexy or violent movie, they might misinterpret the realities of sex and violence if they are not yet capable of understanding them.
However, therein lies the conundrum. I've known kids as young as 2nd graders who are mature and have very mature understandings of topics such as sex and violence. I've also met people in college who have incredibly immature grasps on these ideas. One the one hand it makes sense that exposure coming too early will result in misunderstanding. On the other hand, lack of exposure seems to delay understanding until it's too late. On one hand you have kids mimicking violent acts they don't understand are bad. On the other hand you have college kids drinking, smoking, fucking, and gambling their brains out because they've been banned from doing so throughout their childhood.
We definitely need to do some scientific research to figure out the real truth behind these phenomena. Regardless of all that, I definitely think this is not an area where the government should step in. If we don't know what the answer is, we should definitely not be restricting free speech and expression without any evidence to back up that decision.
Back onto the GTA issue: There is anecdotal evidence, which, as you say, is NOT to be taken as gospel, but it does shed some common sense doubts on the soundness of showing a 4 year old a violent video game. Please note that I am not saying that it will definitely harm the child, nor am I saying that violent video games cause children to be violent. I am just saying it is an unnecessary act (no kid NEEDS to see/play GTA in order to survive), so why would I thrust a child into that situation with NO benefit and even the slightest potential at a negative outcome. Best case scenario, it is a neutral outcome, so what is the point?
On another point: How can you justify GTA as an education tool on violence for a child. Please elaborate.
And you wonder why I get upset?
I was just defining a necessary act v. an unnecessary act. Please don't take this so personally, and please stop addressing things to other posters so personally. Maybe then you will not get so upset.