Jump to content

The Next Generation Of Kids


Protohuman

Recommended Posts

Don't you just hate it when the other side swamps you with posts? :P

Legolover-361, you have yet to use anything but anecdotal evidence, while others have cited multiple studies (mostly in favor of the opinion against yours--although one or two have suggested your points may have a slight foundation in scientific reality). There has not yet been any serious evidence presented that children become immature after seeing violence, nudity, or "adult content" in the media. (Unless someone posted some over the past three days when I was inactive--I just skimmed today.) You argument is mostly that "adult content" leads to immaturity, but it seems more that children (being children and therefore "immature" by definition) are simply immature about violence and sexuality--rather than bugs and cooties. You've made a substantial claim about the entire makeup of society, so I'd like to see substantial evidence.

:blink: I never said that viewing violence leads to immaturity. That makes very little sense. No, I meant to say that because children aren't very mature (as in, they don't have a lot of life experience), they don't know how to handle seeing violence.

However, there is not any study I've seen thus far that implies Marilyn Manson could inspire people to act any specific way--or that we should be afraid of his influence any more than actual problems like war and intolerance.

My answer: You shouldn't. They both influence you. That's all I'm trying to say. The people debating against me here seem to be saying the media holds zero sway over people. I'm trying to say that media is just as influential as everything else.

That doesn't mean you know anything about that person, there are countless other factors that can go into why people are acting poorly towards media that doesn't mean they're being influenced by it in a negative manner. Perhaps, after seeing a massacre on TV, they cope with what they saw through humor, even though humor is not an acceptable way to really handle it? Perhaps their minds equate what's on TV as entirely fictional, like in the Friday the 13th movies, and so they don't feel any emotion towards what's going on, or are more amused with how cheesy the movie is? Maybe their social views and ethical codes are a bit different, which makes it acceptable in their social circles to joke about some subjects (which isn't borne from immaturity, but different personal life-philosophies). It could also be a lack of experience that props an immature response to a more adult situation, not what was shown on TV a few weeks ago (or desentization of the situation). If someone showed another person, who is a teenager or a younger kid, something violent or some nudity, that doesn't mean that the stimulus presented right then and there is going to harm anyone's psyche or cause someone to stay immature. In studies, like the psychological autopsy of the Columbine Shooting perpetrators, yes they watched some violent media, but that doesn't mean it was a cause -- they lived in a violent household, they were constantly bullied and harrassed at school, it seemed to the psychologists involved that the latter were the causes while the former was simply an initial outlet for them to revel in fictional violence, instead of making the jump to real violence.

Um, that's exactly what I believe... :P

And then, what about those who are exposed to such content and are upstanding citizens and adults? Do they not factor in, or is it merely assumed that they are paragons of morality and have always been since they were born?

We're talking about kids here. :P Kids are in the process of maturity; they're more impressionable than adults, and every piece of information they take in will affect how they grow up.Of course people aren't paragons of morality (thank you for introducing me to the word "paragon", by the way). When you're really young, you can't help it -- you know nothing about the world. But see, my opinion comes from my experience. I've been homeschooled since preschool, so I have never been victim to the amounts of peer pressure in schools; I also wasn't exposed to violent media until at least nine, I didn't hear any curse words from fellow kids on my baseball team until I was eleven, and I watched my first PG-13 movie at twelve or thirteen (Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring).In short, because I wasn't in schools with other kids, I didn't grow up like they did. I don't see cursing as a casual pasttime; I don't feel any particular need to play M-rated games or watch R-rated movies; I find bathroom humor unamusing; I respect people when they are talking to me. Sure, kids that are immature today may mature tomorrow -- I'm sure they will to some extent -- but they don't need to act up. I didn't need to. And because I've had time to mature without hearing f-bombs all around me, now I can handle curse words and violent (but not R- or M-rated :P) media knowing I don't need to succumb to it.Do you all understand, or am I being confusing?

I'd say you're giving into cognitive bias here, as your anecdotal evidence is not reliable in and of itself, and is not representative of the entire youth-population as a whole, whereas the studies Malchoir presented are.

I don't see how scientists can see into kids' minds any more than a kind-of-kid can.

How do you know this, though? You haven't cited any studies on the subject that would actually provide evidence for those claims, as there are countless other causes that make a lot more sense than "the media made him do it." And there has been a lot of cases brought up in response to the claims of media-influence, yet for some reason they hold less water than "oh, someone I know did this"?

Again, I never said the media was the only influence. I don't know why everyone is assuming that's what I meant; is my wording that unclear? :confused:

Some people who want to go into Law Enforcement, have a military career, work for the CIA, the Secret Service and so on generally play violent videogames and watch violent media. Why? Because those games often focus around one of those organizations, or one like it, and has portrayals of the agent being a hero who gets all the glory and recognition. They don't play it purely to shoot people up, and if they did, then odds are that person understands that it's fictional and is viewing more as a virtual competition between people online. Just because someone plays COD, or watches James Bond, or reads Lord of the Rings, doesn't mean he or she is going to run outside and start killing people.

Again I'm not talking about killing people -- I'm just talking about impoliteness and a tendency to not take violence and other serious subjects seriously.

In some cases, has it happened? Yes, but not because of the media -- these people already had an interest in being violent, already had an aggressive predisposition and this outlet only helped them vent in a fantasy world. When that doesn't work, and when their minds are solidified with a "violence is the only answer" mentality (which should be curbed by the parents, but alas) they go out and commit a violent act. This wasn't a good lil' kid playing COD and turning into a monster, it was someone who already had a predisposition to violence playing something violent, and then real life pressures cause them to commit violence for it's how they see they can get rid of the pressure.

I already stated I agree that media isn't the only influence; if it were, most of the homeschoolers I know would act the same as schoolkids. I'm only bringing up the media because you all seem to think it's exempt from influencing young minds. I know someone who's been influenced by non-violent media -- I know him personally -- and you may all say this is just another baseless anecdote, but 1. I have no reason to lie because this debate doesn't hold much value anyway, and 2. I'm not going to give out any personal information, even anonymously.

It refers to acts of intolerance or violence committed against a group of people for simply who they are, nowadays, sometimes out of a perceived fear that may be borne less from the actual subject, and more from what people perceive to be ramifications of the subject. But that's just current, modern day semantics.Regardless, a semantics argument is fairly pointless on that matter anyway, as it doesn't pertain much to Waffle's assertion that what is more dangerous is presenting intolerant beliefs of other people (any people, no matter race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or gender identity and countless other things), as in many cases, those do cause real danger to others. (See: Matthew Sheperd, or EricJames Borge's death).

Crime is crime, isn't it? A lost life is a lost life. I'm interpreting your statements as saying that a crime made against a group of people just because those people are different isn't on the same level as a crime made against a group of people not out of discriminatory thoughts; if that's not what you're saying, forget this sentence.I don't think it's fair to put "race" and "gender" in the same sentence as "religion", "creed", and "sexual orientation", though.

However, again, how do you know that they wouldn't joke about it if they understood it? Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't either.

They understand the subject itself. They just don't seem to understand the seriousness and severity of the subject. I'd tell you what the subject is to clear up confusion, but I think I'd lose proto for mentioning it. :P

Yes. And really, I don't see what's so odd about it. I mean, if you're faced with death everyday of your job, how else would you cope with it?

If I were on my deathbed, I wouldn't want someone joking about death around me. That would just make me feel worse, really. (Unless you didn't mean surgeons use dark humor while around a patient?)

In terms of things like life expectancy yes, it's young. But in terms of understanding of the world, I wouldn't say it is. I mean over here in the UK you can legally work and live by yourself at 16.

You don't really understand the world till you've gone out and lived through it; that's my personal opinion. And I don't mean lived through everything the world has to offer; I mean lived long enough to see both fortune and bad luck, have big responsibilities, and experience a good portion of the human maturation process.

Let me take you back to the 1995 St. Helena research I cited in my first post. It found no change at all before and after television.

I just read about that. Apparently there were changes, but mainly focused around cartoons, not shows with "violent acts" (the report I read did not define what constituted a "violent act"). I noticed there was no mention of parenting, though; I have no idea if all those children's television exploits were monitored by parents or not, which means I don't know if the data is effective for kids whose parents let them to whatever. Not only that, the study was conducted on a remote island where television broadcasts were not introduced until 1995; the two surveys were taken 1993 and 1998, respectively, and apparently only fifty-five percent of people surveyed did watch TV on a regular basis, so I doubt media had as big an influence on the inhabitants of St. Helena at that point than it does in the U.S.I can't take that study as conclusive evidence because it leaves a lot of data out of the question. Media itself doesn't do much, I agree, but media coupled with social and parental factors might.

How is viewing a broadcast of a speech through media having a different effect than hearing it in person?

It's not different, hence why I said media and real-life people can have influences. It all works together to shape a person. Isolated events should be taken in context.

We were talking about high-school shootings and the pinning of the blame on Marilyn Manson...

I already said Marilyn Manson probably wasn't at fault, right?

I would say that if my kids were interested in the news, then they would already be old enough to understand them, so yes, yes I would. If I had children, I would bring them up to understand that they need to question what they see or hear (anywhere, not just the media) and think for themselves.

So you would be involving yourself in your children's social interactions, just not directly. That's good because it would warn your kids about biased views. My argument is against parents, would-be or otherwise, who wouldn't do what you just said you would.

I don't mean to be patronising or anything like that, but if you're 16 and you are not allowed to watch the news you may want to have a chat with your parents/guardians about it. I would actually be a bit worried if I wasn't allowed something like watching the news when I was 16. I mean sure, we don't have unreliable and bias things like the Fox channel over here, but still, 16 is old enough to think for yourself, don't you think?Again, don't mean to come off as patronising or rude.

I really hate how I keep messing up my text. http://www.bzpower.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed2.gif I'm allowed to watch the news; I'm just not encouraged to at this point, especially because I have two younger brothers around who aren't ready for the news yet.

Just like to point out, Legolover, that a century ago people were being married off at the tender age of sixteen. You can argue it was different times, and indeed they were, but most of the elderly people from that time that I have second hand accounts from -very few people still live from the Edwardian era- didn't turn out too bad, and they were getting bloody married. You don't get much more adult than that, in both senses of the word.Point being, most fourteen/fifteen year olds that I know -and technically speaking I still am fifteen years old, but I'm so close to my birthday I consider myself sixteen- can think for themselves, and certainly by sixteen you've reached a point where you shouldn't need isolation anymore.

I disagree with marrying at sixteen, for the record. It just doesn't fit in today's society. :P People back then did it because it wasn't seen as outlandish; I think it had to do partially with life expectancy rates. Or was that for young marriage back in the eighteenth century...?I'm sixteen, myself, so I understand -- I definitely think for myself. Maybe I just have a problem with a lot of other schoolkids, lol, but I stand by my guns: that media does provide a level of influence, but social factors provide more.

Right, right, so you know people who play violent video games and are rude. Do you have any empirical evidence to support the idea of a serious correlation (or positive evidence of causation) in this situation? There are loads of ways one could do a serious study regarding "rudeness" and the media, surely somebody's done one or two.Anecdotal evidence is worth about as much as one white duck in this situation.

I've seen no studies (and I'm not about to do in-depth research for an online debate), but I've seen and experienced firsthand the effects media can have on a kid's mind; while the media obviously isn't the only cause, it does contribute to people's personalities. I didn't say only violent video games affected rudeness, for the record. I said parents who let their kids watch / play / read media they aren't ready for and the peer pressure-driven environment of school are at fault. Media just happens to play a part in some cases.Also, don't diss white ducks. D:* * *Before we go any further, I want to make clear my stance because people seem to be misintepreting it:
  • [*]Media by itself does not lead to killing. I honestly think that's a silly idea, really.[*]Media by itself can lead to behavioral changes. (Note my usage of "can" rather than "does".)[*]Social factors provide a majority of influence. However, social factors are influenced in some way by the media, and there's still the fact that direct media exposure occurs to many kids, so media does play a part in influencing lives.

Grah, I hate being alone on my side. XD

Edited by Legolover-361
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, "homophobia" implies fear. Most people aren't afraid of the subject the term refers to.

It refers to acts of intolerance or violence committed against a group of people for simply who they are, nowadays, sometimes out of a perceived fear that may be borne less from the actual subject, and more from what people perceive to be ramifications of the subject. But that's just current, modern day semantics.Regardless, a semantics argument is fairly pointless on that matter anyway, as it doesn't pertain much to Waffle's assertion that what is more dangerous is presenting intolerant beliefs of other people (any people, no matter race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or gender identity and countless other things), as in many cases, those do cause real danger to others. (See: Matthew Sheperd, or EricJames Borge's death).
THIS THIS THIS

Really? Because a lot would argue that most hate comes from fear.

I haven't seen evidence of much hate, either, though there are a few cases I've heard of, and I'm not really allowed to watch the news a lot, anyway.To Spink and BioGio: I'd reply, but I have to go get my hair cut. Rest assured I do have comebacks. :P
Oh god, LLvr.As you have told us, you obviously don't know much about the news, and are trying to make a point about them. While this may be a cheap ad hominem, your lack of good sources shows that you don't know about what you're talking about.And intolerance is much more of an issue than the ruse kids you encounters. Intolerance is the cause of hundreds of hate crimes, suicides, and persecutions of the past yeas. It is what has polarized so much of the nation, and the world. Constantly, every day, there is much more harm done by this than by the rudeness you present. At the risk of using anecdotal evidence, ever school I have gone to is full of intolerant people, and many other BZPers can testify their experiences. (Spink, could you lend a hand to get me out of this hole I have dug for myself?)First thing you should do is watch/read the news for the next month. One needs to be informed in order to give a good argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of using anecdotal evidence, ever school I have gone to is full of intolerant people, and many other BZPers can testify their experiences.

I certainly can; maybe it's just my region, but yeah, the schools I've been to aren't very tolerant, as least to the LGBT community.

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you just hate it when the other side swamps you with posts? :P lol, yeah.

Legolover-361, you have yet to use anything but anecdotal evidence, while others have cited multiple studies (mostly in favor of the opinion against yours--although one or two have suggested your points may have a slight foundation in scientific reality). There has not yet been any serious evidence presented that children become immature after seeing violence, nudity, or "adult content" in the media. (Unless someone posted some over the past three days when I was inactive--I just skimmed today.) You argument is mostly that "adult content" leads to immaturity, but it seems more that children (being children and therefore "immature" by definition) are simply immature about violence and sexuality--rather than bugs and cooties. You've made a substantial claim about the entire makeup of society, so I'd like to see substantial evidence.

:blink: I never said that viewing violence leads to immaturity. That makes very little sense. No, I meant to say that because children aren't very mature (as in, they don't have a lot of life experience), they don't know how to handle seeing violence.I'm just going to leave you with your own post to show you that you actually did say that. Emphasis is mine. While your next sentence goes on to place blame in other places, you stated outright that exposure to adult content would make people immature. To me, that's saying that the media makes people more immature. Please explain how it isn't. (Unless this is just because you don't count violence as adult.)

There may have been studies conducted on the matter, but I know for sure that being exposed to adult content too early can lead to immature behavior. The media's content can't be judged by itself; you need to take into account the age of exposure, other people's reactions to such content, the child's interest in such content and the parents', and the child's normal life experiences.

However, there is not any study I've seen thus far that implies Marilyn Manson could inspire people to act any specific way--or that we should be afraid of his influence any more than actual problems like war and intolerance.

My answer: You shouldn't. They both influence you. That's all I'm trying to say. The people debating against me here seem to be saying the media holds zero sway over people. I'm trying to say that media is just as influential as everything else. But it isn't equally influential as anything else. You're placing the media above its actual influence. I'm going to ask you again: Show me the studies.I'll leave Spink to respond to your rebuttals of his comments, as his comments were both lengthy and his own (duh)--except for two.

I'd say you're giving into cognitive bias here, as your anecdotal evidence is not reliable in and of itself, and is not representative of the entire youth-population as a whole, whereas the studies Malchoir presented are.

I don't see how scientists can see into kids' minds any more than a kind-of-kid can. That's anti-intellectual and unreasonable. Scientific, empirical evidence is the basis of understanding how the world (including kids), so an actual study of the population and psyche of most children will actually tell you how they think. You're using hearsay and a few samples of anecdotal evidence to generalize about a huge portion of human beings.

It refers to acts of intolerance or violence committed against a group of people for simply who they are, nowadays, sometimes out of a perceived fear that may be borne less from the actual subject, and more from what people perceive to be ramifications of the subject. But that's just current, modern day semantics.Regardless, a semantics argument is fairly pointless on that matter anyway, as it doesn't pertain much to Waffle's assertion that what is more dangerous is presenting intolerant beliefs of other people (any people, no matter race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or gender identity and countless other things), as in many cases, those do cause real danger to others. (See: Matthew Sheperd, or EricJames Borge's death).

Crime is crime, isn't it? A lost life is a lost life. I'm interpreting your statements as saying that a crime made against a group of people just because those people are different isn't on the same level as a crime made against a group of people not out of discriminatory thoughts; if that's not what you're saying, forget this sentence. No, he's just saying that intolerance is an actual danger. I've drummed up a list of such cases, since you don't seem to watch the news (a terrible shame, in my humble opinion): Ryan Halligan, Tyler Clementi, Eric James Borges, Phillip Parker, Jamie Hubley, Jayme Rodemeyer, and Jonah Mowry--and that's only gay teens who committed or attempted suicide.I don't think it's fair to put "race" and "gender" in the same sentence as "religion", "creed", and "sexual orientation", though. Why not? Sure one's religion and beliefs are choices (unlike race, gender, or sexuality), but any form of intolerance--be it refusal to accept political views, religion, or gender identity--is unacceptable. Otherwise, antisemitism and having political prisoners would be fine--but not racism and sexism would be uniquely unacceptable.

I don't mean to be patronising or anything like that, but if you're 16 and you are not allowed to watch the news you may want to have a chat with your parents/guardians about it. I would actually be a bit worried if I wasn't allowed something like watching the news when I was 16. I mean sure, we don't have unreliable and bias things like the Fox channel over here, but still, 16 is old enough to think for yourself, don't you think?Again, don't mean to come off as patronising or rude.

I really hate how I keep messing up my text. http://www.bzpower.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed2.gif I'm allowed to watch the news; I'm just not encouraged to at this point, especially because I have two younger brothers around who aren't ready for the news yet. But you've heavily implied that you don't. You really, really should.

Right, right, so you know people who play violent video games and are rude. Do you have any empirical evidence to support the idea of a serious correlation (or positive evidence of causation) in this situation? There are loads of ways one could do a serious study regarding "rudeness" and the media, surely somebody's done one or two.Anecdotal evidence is worth about as much as one white duck in this situation.

I've seen no studies (and I'm not about to do in-depth research for an online debate), but I've seen and experienced firsthand the effects media can have on a kid's mind; while the media obviously isn't the only cause, it does contribute to people's personalities. I didn't say only violent video games affected rudeness, for the record. I said parents who let their kids watch / play / read media they aren't ready for and the peer pressure-driven environment of school are at fault. Media just happens to play a part in some cases. Well, a lot of us on the other side have done research, and we know what we're talking about on a much larger scale as a result. Last year, I took an entire class that was just about this stuff (media influence)--and I'm probably the very least informed on my side. Anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless. It leads to confirmation bias and hearing the vocal minority too much to be reasonable and unbiased.Also, don't diss white ducks. D:* * *Before we go any further, I want to make clear my stance because people seem to be misintepreting it:
  • [*]Media by itself does not lead to killing. I honestly think that's a silly idea, really.[*]Media by itself can lead to behavioral changes. (Note my usage of "can" rather than "does".)[*]Social factors provide a majority of influence. However, social factors are (You just used "are" instead of "can"--meaning that you seem to have changed positions after only one sentence.) influenced in some way by the media, and there's still the fact that direct media exposure occurs to many kids, so media does play a part in influencing lives.

Grah, I hate being alone on my side. XD

Comments are in boldface, black, Georgia typeface.Also, I'll define "intolerance" for Waffles, since he doesn't seem to be viewing the topic ATM. From dictionary.com:

lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

Ultimately, it's almost impossible to define as an idea alone, but one knows it when one sees it (or at least I think Waffles and I do).

~ BioGioEDIT: Woah, fonts. Crazy stuff happening here with those.

Edited by BioGio

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waffles, before I reply, could you define "intolerance"?

Refusing to respect a person or idea.EDIT: Doesn't this topic make you happy inside? It makes me giggle like Pinkie Pie after a sugar rush at a party!SO MUCH SUSPENSE Edited by Waffles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will contribute one thing to this discussion:Many posters thus far have stated that they believe the next generation is bad because they see children who pick fights, bother others, and listen to loud pop/rap music."Where are the good kids, the shy kids, kids that are they way I was when I was growing up?" they ask.Answer: You don't notice them; they're shy! They're trying to remain as inconspicuous as possible. :PI was shy when I was younger, and except in the classroom (where I was a pretty good student) I generally wasn't noticed by adults. If I was somewhere with my parents and there was another kid near by kicking up a ruckus, of course bystanders would remember him over me, sitting quietly in my chair!So for those of you who feel there are no good kids anymore, take heart. They will reveal themselves in due time, when they (like I did) finally pick up some social skills and become ready to take on the world. :D-ShyyrnP.S.: I know this comment is somewhat out of place in this discussion, which is delving very heavily into science and academia, but bear with me. Thank you. :P

"Let me realize that my past failures at follow-through are no indication of my future performance...

...They're just healthy little fires that are going to light up my resolve."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BioGio, look up "homosexual therapy" and you'll see why sexuality isn't the same as race. Also, scientists aren't all-knowing, you know; notice my criticisms of the survey Malchior took.Other than that, I can reply to nothing until later tomorrow. Please stop calling me ignorant when I'm not. I'm just debating from personal experience. Honestly, on the internet, my information is as valid as any supposed study's. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homosexual therapy

Looked it up quickly, disagreed with it, and thought of comparing it to Nazi human experimentation but decided against it.

sexuality isn't the same as race

*epiphany*

the internet, my information is as valid as any supposed study's

How? That's a study, your information isn't.THE SUSPENSE BUILDS: SEVEN PEOPLE LOOKING AT THIS TOPIC Edited by Waffles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about kids here. :P Kids are in the process of maturity; they're more impressionable than adults, and every piece of information they take in will affect how they grow up.Of course people aren't paragons of morality (thank you for introducing me to the word "paragon", by the way). When you're really young, you can't help it -- you know nothing about the world. But see, my opinion comes from my experience. I've been homeschooled since preschool, so I have never been victim to the amounts of peer pressure in schools; I also wasn't exposed to violent media until at least nine, I didn't hear any curse words from fellow kids on my baseball team until I was eleven, and I watched my first PG-13 movie at twelve or thirteen (Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring).In short, because I wasn't in schools with other kids, I didn't grow up like they did. I don't see cursing as a casual pasttime; I don't feel any particular need to play M-rated games or watch R-rated movies; I find bathroom humor unamusing; I respect people when they are talking to me. Sure, kids that are immature today may mature tomorrow -- I'm sure they will to some extent -- but they don't need to act up. I didn't need to. And because I've had time to mature without hearing f-bombs all around me, now I can handle curse words and violent (but not R- or M-rated :P) media knowing I don't need to succumb to it.Do you all understand, or am I being confusing?

It seemed like you were asserting that media influences people in negative ways when people are exposed to it at a young age. If it were a real problem, like one that would need to be remedied, then these problems would persist into adult life, which is why I pointed towards clear-headed young adults who may have been exposed to some nasty things through the media in their childhood (regardless of precisely what subject it is) and who are fine people, are competent people, are even kind people who aren't impolite in an overt manner.From what you're saying, though, it seems more like you're asserting that it's the environment that affects behavior and not the media. My point, at its finest, isn't that media is causing kids to be rude, violent, but that it's the parents job to simply teach that it's wrong to steal from someone, even though Robin Hood does. So while media can give ideas, like maybe a solution to a conundrum some teen/kid is in, it's not the media's fault if that individual actually goes through with it. (Which lots of people think, given the many calls for censorship of books, movies and games), and that any blame lies with the parents and that parenting is what would need to be looked into, versus the media.Saying "well, it might kinda sorta influence a behavior" might be true, but it's not really big enough to merit an argument for the effect could be negligible. (And certainly wouldn't be profound enough to lead a kid to a life of crime, in the most extreme example).

I don't see how scientists can see into kids' minds any more than a kind-of-kid can.

Psychologists are trained professionals who evaluate the human mind based on innumerable factors, kids are not. For instance, someone who might be joking about a horrible event to his/her friends might seem -- to other kids -- as not taking it seriously enough, or making a mockery of the situation, when in reality that's just how that individual copes with those types of things. Using humor is a coping mechanism for some people, and isn't a genuine "oh that's so funny." A psychologist would know that, due to studying the many different behavioral patterns of individuals and what is roughly known to happen to people in some situations.

Again, I never said the media was the only influence. I don't know why everyone is assuming that's what I meant; is my wording that unclear? :confused:

You never presented much else, it seemed like you were focusing on "it's primarily the media that influences kids to act badly" which is an inaccurate statement.

Again I'm not talking about killing people -- I'm just talking about impoliteness and a tendency to not take violence and other serious subjects seriously.

It still is analgous, just change "desentization" with "violence." Kids aren't desensitized to violence through games and media, I know that I sure wasn't -- even after watching the SAW movies at a young age, and innumerable slasher films -- and then having the misfortune to see some police tapes of crimes that had occurred (In my Law Enforcement class). The latter made me physically sick and quite emotional, while the former did neither. It's more to do with the "I can separate what is and is not real." Some people who do joke about the latter, no one I know, might either be thinking of it in movie-terms (ie: it's fantasy to them), or that could be their coping mechanism. Plus, some kids, teens, and even adults simply aren't empathetical enough -- or have the thought -- to feel particularly emotional when discussing some subjects, like wars, or tragedies in the past.

I already stated I agree that media isn't the only influence; if it were, most of the homeschoolers I know would act the same as schoolkids. I'm only bringing up the media because you all seem to think it's exempt from influencing young minds. I know someone who's been influenced by non-violent media -- I know him personally -- and you may all say this is just another baseless anecdote, but 1. I have no reason to lie because this debate doesn't hold much value anyway, and 2. I'm not going to give out any personal information, even anonymously.

Generally speaking, anecdotal evidence doesn't count because -- even though you may know this person well -- you might not know why he/she behaves in specific ways, truly. I will concede that books can influence people, through presenting arguments and ideas, and that movies can do the same (such as revisionist history films, or films that pose a well supported argument). My argument is more coming from the vein "seeing violence = more aggressiveness, desensitization, seeing X = doing X."

Crime is crime, isn't it? A lost life is a lost life. I'm interpreting your statements as saying that a crime made against a group of people just because those people are different isn't on the same level as a crime made against a group of people not out of discriminatory thoughts; if that's not what you're saying, forget this sentence.I don't think it's fair to put "race" and "gender" in the same sentence as "religion", "creed", and "sexual orientation", though.

I'm not saying anything about severity of crime, or the like (that is a whole different argument, one part moral and ethical and one part technical), but I am agreeing with Waffles on the matter that when intolerance of a certain type of person (like a person of a religion, of a specific creed, race, gender (or gender identity), sexual orientation and so on) will influence a child in that household more than the media ever will. (Influence can be different, sometimes the kid might be influenced to violence through intolerance of other kinds of people, or that kid will experience self-loathing and depression due to being what his parents/others are intolerant of).For the last, why? Sure, religion and creed are choices made consciously by a person so that does set them apart from the other three, but hate crimes can happen to any five (and more) of those types of people. That would be getting onto the train of thought that "Well, he's of X religion, so the crime is less severe than the the one against the woman because he can always change his religion to fit the tastes of his assailants."(The last half is my reasoning, and goes into a different argument that relates to the severity of crimes, just adding this so it doesn't somehow cause a topic derailment.)Also, LLvr, sexual-orientation therapies are a discredited science that often leads to suicide of the patient. (The American Psychological Association no longer recognizes some practices, and some of these practices are particularly brutal -- shock therapy, for example). However, I'm going to say (As a Forum Assistant) that this discussion of the homsexual therapy/homosexuality itself be dropped lest it become as horrid as it once was on this website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legolover, if I were to do the quoting again, I would be here formatting forever so I'll just do a general reply, I'm sure you can piece it together.Again, no matter how severe the subject is, you have no idea whether they understand its severity or not. You cannot get inside of their heads, and you probably didn't have serious conversation about the subject with them either. No matter how severe a subject is, there will always be someone who will joke about it, even while fully understanding its severity. And yes, of course the surgeons don't make fun of the patient as they're dying. For many, that's just how they cope with it after they die.You seem to have missed the point of the study. The fact that the island received no television between 1995 was the reason why it was conducted. Because there was no better way to examine the influence of television.Also, your argument seems to be fluctuating throughout. First you say that the media has as much an influence as all other factors, then you say that that other factors provide more influence. All in the same post.You say you experienced first-hand effects of media influence on kids. Have you really? Can you really be sure that that media is playing a part in causing these effects and that it's not just other social factors?Allow me to present you with a rather interesting study from 1971, done by Feshbach and Singer, that shows a catharsis effect of violent media. Yes, it's a bit old but still relevant. They got a large sample of boys, from both private and state schools, and showed them large amounts of television for 6 weeks. The sample was split into groups, with some only being allowed to watch aggressive television, and others not allowed aggressive television at all. At the end of the study, the groups which were watching only aggressive television were less aggressive in their behaviour than the others.So, according to this study, violent media does not make one more violent or rude, or even have any sort of influence on one to behave that way, whether combined with other factors or not. If anything, it's a safe outlet for their violence or aggressiveness. With video games, it would be no different, and if anything the catharsis effect would be stronger.You say that children don't know how to handle violent media, but they do. Numerous studies show that children are not as media illiterate as you think.Your whole argument to me seems to excusing the faults of other social factors and institutions as being caused by the media. Which may be not at all what you're implying, but it does seem like that.

___


8Sxue4J.jpg


___


___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malchior, you have the right idea -- let's forget the quoting now, because everyone's ganging up on me and I can't possibly sort out all those posts in under half an hour. :PFirst you say social factors and the media are equal, then you say social factors are more important than the media.I meant any single factor is as important as the media. If you lump all social factors in one group, of course they'll be more influential than the effects of media because media is just one factor. Honestly, if I can't word my stance right in the future, I'll drop out of this argument; it gets frustrating when you can't put into words what you mean. http://www.bzpower.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed2.gifWho do you know who's affected by media? How do you know?He repeats jokes he's seen on television, shadow-fights the way video game characters do, and always jokes about violent acts -- punching, kicking, shooting, blowing stuff up. He also says that video games aren't good unless they have some amount of violence, tries to push his parents' limits by saying "darn" and "heck" all the time, and only tells his own jokes by copying jokes he's elsewhere.When someone is repeating jokes he hears on TV and trying to punch and kick like Megaman, how can he not be influenced by the media? And he's not even as knowledgeable as other, younger kids who joke about far worse things.A 1971 experiment by Feshbach and Singer showed violence on television actually decreased the amount of aggression performed in real life.The theorized conclusion was that in watching TV, viewers relate to the characters on TV and so release their aggressive feelings through seeing the TV character perform the violent acts. From what I'm reading, the study also concluded that "In order to control aggression, family members and the mass media should provide positive role models for children and the general public." In other words, even if watching aggressive acts doesn't cause aggression by itself, it still can influence kids by educating them, and so parents should be sure their kids aren't being taught bad values through media.What constituted a "violent show" back then, I wonder? Just a gunshot, or a gunshot and an avalanche of blood?You seem to have missed the point of the study. The fact that the island received no television between 1995 was the reason why it was conducted. Because there was no better way to examine the influence of television.Only fifty-five percent of people actually watched television, though. And again, we don't know how those kids watched TV -- if their parents monitored them or not.You seem to be saying that the faults of social factors and institutions are all actually the fault of the media.No, I'm not -- didn't I just say that? http://www.bzpower.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/annoyed2.gif Media can influence people. According to that study on television, aggressive acts do affect kids, just not in the way we would expect. The scientists who performed that study also concluded television can be a source of education. Thus, media plays its part. That's all I'm saying.You guys seem to be saying the media plays no part and that its effects are negligible. I happen to think media plays more of a role than that. Our brains take in more than we realize. We're being bombarded with information from the internet and other media. You'd think it would play some sort of role in defining a personality, right?You seemed to focus only on the effects of the media.So was everyone else. What was I supposed to focus on? :P* * *That's all for now.

Edited by Legolover-361
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, calm down guys, really :blink:

I see no need for calming down. It's a serious discussion, not a flame-war.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh Proto, I expected a fully fledged argument from you.In Spanish there's a phrase: "Del árbol caído todos hacen leña"It means, "From a fallen tree, all get firewood"The reason why everyone's attacking you LLvr is because they see your argument is falling, and everyone rushes to put the nails in the coffin.And that kids you're talking about, seems quite immature. I've known kids that are like that, and they are a minority, and many times their actions are ways to get out their energy. They might have ADHD. While I'm no pyschologist, and I'm deigning to your level of using first-hand evidence, this kids is clearly not "normal" and media influence might be the catalyst for his behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree about the kid not being "normal," myself, and the media seems, in my opinion, to be a small factor here - if he wasn't playing video games, he wouldn't be emulating video game characters, certainly, but he'd be being silly in some other way.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Spanish there's a phrase: "Del árbol caído todos hacen leña"It means, "From a fallen tree, all get firewood"The reason why everyone's attacking you LLvr is because they see your argument is falling, and everyone rushes to put the nails in the coffin.

*transforms from fallen tree to Ent*:evilgrin:

And that kids you're talking about, seems quite immature. I've known kids that are like that, and they are a minority, and many times their actions are ways to get out their energy. They might have ADHD. While I'm no pyschologist, and I'm deigning to your level of using first-hand evidence, this kids is clearly not "normal" and media influence might be the catalyst for his behavior.

The title "ADHD" is rather disputed from what I've heard because its symptoms are vague and might be caused by something other than a mental disorder -- for example, just not being interested in a subject, or being stuck in school for four, five hours. This isn't the time or place to debate that, though.I half-agree with the Shadows out of Time:

I disagree about the kid not being "normal," myself, and the media seems, in my opinion, to be a small factor here - if he wasn't playing video games, he wouldn't be emulating video game characters, certainly, but he'd be being silly in some other way.

I'm not quite sure how early he was exposed to television. It was at a young age, I think. My point, though, is that he is copying things he's picked up on through visual media, which means the media, whether it caused his silliness or not, is influencing him. Edited by Legolover-361
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, kids will be kids. When I was little I pretended I was a dinosaur. This was, in part, because I really enjoyed Jurassic Park, but if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. If I'd grown up with absolutely no external stimuli whatsoever, I would have made something up.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, kids will be kids.

Which is exactly what us old geezers are complaining about. :PDon't take that comment too seriously, though. Kids'll be kids, yeah. I just wish they didn't try to be so adult (this is only my opinion, so let's not start another debate over this, lol). Sometimes I long for the days when I knew nothing about the world and was enveloped in a bath of naive innocence... I didn't have to worry about all the social controversies and other bad happenings in the world.Also, an addendum to my reply to Alex Humva:

Just like to point out, Legolover, that a century ago people were being married off at the tender age of sixteen. You can argue it was different times, and indeed they were, but most of the elderly people from that time that I have second hand accounts from -very few people still live from the Edwardian era- didn't turn out too bad, and they were getting bloody married. You don't get much more adult than that, in both senses of the word.Point being, most fourteen/fifteen year olds that I know -and technically speaking I still am fifteen years old, but I'm so close to my birthday I consider myself sixteen- can think for themselves, and certainly by sixteen you've reached a point where you shouldn't need isolation anymore.

A century ago, children were also strictly disciplined. They'd be struck with rulers and belts, and through it all, do their part to work for their families' welfare. They also didn't have violent video games or TV. Those were different times both during and after childhood. Edited by Legolover-361
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A century ago, children were also strictly disciplined. They'd be struck with rulers and belts, and through it all, do their part to work for their families' welfare. They also didn't have violent video games or TV. Those were different times both during and after childhood.

Yeah, it was an interesting era for sure. But the whole violent video games thing I can't really counter because it wasn't my original point. My original point was the marriage thing, and that side of the argument; not the violence part.I can't argue against or for violence because it is my personal belief, based both in my opinion and scientific improbabilities, that you simply cannot conduct a proper study on the subject. Scientific studies need laboratory conditions to be proven; this cannot be brought into the lab and studied. Well, not all aspects of it; there have been lab studies regarding violent video games, but not for this purpose.There's simply too many variables here; our environment is thousands upon thousands of different little things all working together for larger aspects. Now, I may be wrong in my opinion, but until someone proves to me otherwise I can't say anything regarding media invoking violence because I don't believe it can be proven one way or the other.What I can say though is that there are plenty of good studies about this thing. They aren't strictly scientific but they are good studies nonetheless. The table seems to be slanted to the media, be it TV, literature, video games, or any such thing, doesn't cause violent behavior by it's self.

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, I know those kids could beat me up. I'm not even joking, I have jelly instead of muscles, so I fear for the day some cocky little brat goes beyond the "You startin' bruv?" and actually gets physical. It'd probably be the most humiliating day ever. That and I'm so chivalrous, I'd never hit a kid. ...Yeah, that'll do.Although, to be honest I won't blame the next generation, when I hate most of my generation in the first place. I blame them, and the constant alcohol abuse and teenage pregnancies. That's usually why the lower levels end up so...messed up. ...Oh by the spirits, I'm getting old.

I totally agree.This generations isn't setting a good example for the next.

Undergoing Renovations...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we should move on from the media debate, Legolover, as there's really no point continuing. The question is whether these select kids are being influenced because media is influential or because they're just easily influenced by anything because of other issues, and we have different answers to that. So yeah.Moving on to this new topic on the history of childhood, don't forget that the concept of childhood as we know it is a fairly recent idea. Not that long ago children were treated like adults - they were expected to go to work and faced the same sanctions and punishments for breaking the law. The concept of childhood and the way society perceives it is still evolving, so really, it's natural that each generation is different in some ways, be it better or worse. I think it's a result of society's conditioning of them.Oh, and Alex, laboratory conditions are really the last thing these sort of studies need. The validity they hold is close to zero due to a thing called the Hawthorne Effect, which basically means that participants of laboratory experiments behave and respond completely differently than they would in natural conditions because of the artificial conditions they're palced in and because they know they're being observed and therefore control their response, most often trying to meet the expectations of the researcher.

___


8Sxue4J.jpg


___


___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Alex, laboratory conditions are really the last thing these sort of studies need. The validity they hold is close to zero due to a thing called the Hawthorne Effect, which basically means that participants of laboratory experiments behave and respond completely differently than they would in natural conditions because of the artificial conditions they're palced in and because they know they're being observed and therefore control their response, most often trying to meet the expectations of the researcher.

...I know. I wasn't arguing that we should do laboratory tests, I was arguing against them because of all the variables. Removing the variables defeats the point; I was arguing that we can't know for certain because of all the different variables, be it in the lab -where they're removed- or in nature -where they're present-. The studies are only educated guesses in both scenarios because of too many or too few variables. Me arguing for laboratory tests would be the peak of hypocrisy. Edited by Sweetroll Thief Alex Humva

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on to this new topic on the history of childhood, don't forget that the concept of childhood as we know it is a fairly recent idea. Not that long ago children were treated like adults - they were expected to go to work and faced the same sanctions and punishments for breaking the law. The concept of childhood and the way society perceives it is still evolving, so really, it's natural that each generation is different in some ways, be it better or worse. I think it's a result of society's conditioning of them.

I would say that plays a part, but I don't think it affects children directly because conditions change with each successive wave of children, not for each child over their lives. Perhaps the way parents were raised has to do with how they raise their children?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that plays a part, but I don't think it affects children directly because conditions change with each successive wave of children, not for each child over their lives. Perhaps the way parents were raised has to do with how they raise their children?

I would say how the parents were raised has everything to do with how they raise there children. From what I understand, you get small generational shifts, with large ones during chaotic or unusual periods -for instance, the 50s, when war veterans were returning home-, which in turn are passed to the next generation's ideals. It's almost like biological mutation, with ideas changing slightly over the generations until something else -to carry the metaphor, radiation- is introduced to change them quickly.

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. No one in this thread is old enough to complain about "those darn kids again". You're not old enough to complain until you have your own kids and they're going to university at least. You're not complaining about "the next generation" you're complaining out your little brother.Second; The primary influence on children is their family, all roads always lead back to the parents. Is a child overly violent because they play violent games? I guess they got they bought a 400 dollar rig and and fifty dollar game all by themselves and then played it in a secret base so there was no way they parents would know. If theres something wrong with a kid be it their behavior or social/poltical views its almost always the parents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point being, most fourteen/fifteen year olds that I know -and technically speaking I still am fifteen years old, but I'm so close to my birthday I consider myself sixteen- can think for themselves, and certainly by sixteen you've reached a point where you shouldn't need isolation anymore.

Just wanted to pop in real quick and address this: thinking for yourself does not automatically make you mature. Not alone, at least. Secondly, there's a lot of adults that aren't mature, and there's a lot of kids that are. That's why there now has to be a distinction between the two: being an adult doesn't make you mature, and being a kid doesn't make you immature.Where am I going with this? Mostly that saying that you think you can think for yourself is sort of like having the defendant be his own judge in his trial. I'm not saying that its not true, but that there's a pretty obvious bias there.(note that I'm sort of taking "thinking for yourself" to be more of a "I'm mature enough to do _______ because I can think for myself" sort of statement as insinuated from the other statements in your post. I'm sort of assuming you're not saying that "I can think" or "I think/question my parents'/teachers' advice/teachings/etc."; if you are, sorry, then yeah you can "think for yourself" in that sense, but then again, that's sort of a basic and common trait among teenagers in general and probably shouldn't be used as a basis for maturity level so =/).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kahi; I wasn't using thinking for yourself as a level of maturity, rather just part of being mature. You can think for yourself and still be an arrogant immature **** -the BZP filter prevents be from using what is not a curse, simply a person who is really annoying and generally bad-. Me, I don't consider myself mature because no one can judge their own maturity. Maturity isn't some innate nebulous quality that can or cannot be measured; maturity, IMO at least, is simply how the people around you judge and react to you. It gets really difficult when you try to breach the culture barrier with maturity; in some places some things are considered more mature than others.Of course, my definition of maturity falls apart when you hold it up to society's ideas. For instance, most people would consider a respectful and courteous college age student mature, but if he were to sleep with a stuffed bear for whatever reason, people would view him as less mature. But ultimately the people around us are what define how mature we are, because honestly, how are we suppose to figure out how mature we are on our own? Either we say we're mature and are egotistical, or we say we aren't and are constantly stuck in a loop.Sort of a rant, and I appologize; my ultimate point is, my statement was simply saying that thinking for yourself is simply a part of being 'mature' enough to handle things like the news media, which is what I was referring to in my post. It's not the sole aspect you need, simply one of them. I don't even want to get into how it relates to other things, like violence or adult themes, because that's a whole other can of worms that takes college degrees just to begin to figure out.

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're very funny. Now kindly consider either contributing to the conversation or not posting in the topic.On the subject of maturity, one big issue is that the definition is rather nebulous, and can be modified to fit whatever someone wants their argument to be. I think that, if we're going to trudge into those muddy waters, it might be best to have an agreed-upon psychological definition for maturity before continuing down that path.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:kaukau: Maturity is a relative description. A baby is more mature than a fetus. A kindergartener is more mature than a baby. A preteen is more mature than a kindergartener. A high-schooler is more mature than a preteen. Presumably, a college student is more mature than a high school student, and from there the comparisons get a little tricky as adults dispute exactly what behavior is appropriate of civilized people and what philosophies should govern a person's actions.There are also different types of maturity. There's physical, intellectual, social, emotional, and spiritual maturity, all of which play an important part in the development of a person. I suppose that in a discussion like this the best that can be done to standardize the terms is to clarify the type of maturity referred to whenever the term is used.Your Honor,Tyrannosaurus Kraggh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on childrenyou're acting like childrenEvery generation thinksit's the end of the word-Wilco, You Never Know

There's a dozen selves inside you, trying to be the one to run the dials

[BZPRPG Profiles]

Hatchi - Talli - Ranok - Lucira - FerellisMorie - Fanai - Akiyo - Yukie - Shuuan - Ilykaed - Pradhai - Ipsudir

And some aren't even on your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the guy a few posts above. Parents are the reason 99% of the time. According to Frontline, there has been a substantial increase in the diagnosis of disorders like ADHD and Bi-Polar disorder since the 2000's began. And I don't think it's the technology or genetics. I think some parents misinterpret immaturity with disoder. Parents are also purchasing all of ther food, entertainment, and clothes. They are allowing the next generation to access "things we didn't have as kids." My generation's "worst" game was Super Smash Bros, but if we were really lucky and had an older brother, we would have Turok or Rainbow 6, and if we were blessed, we would have GTA. My friend is currently 11 and has been playing CoD since WaW came out. I see some of his friends on social networks and they dress in short reflections of the Jersey Shore cast. This may be just me, but they may be a little too young for that. Kids are also absorbing a lot of media. And I don't think they are watching Spongebob. I don't see how hard it is today to put parental controls on a TV, nor is it hard to monitor one's child on the internet, like, say, checking the history. Heck, video games should be the easiest to control! I'm not saying "NO IPAD FOR KID" or the like. I believe in embracing tech; my school may drop books and rent us tablets for interactive & superior eText Books. That would vastly improve our education. Kids are fair game, but they really shouldn't be using tech to kill for points, nor to look at memes all day, which I find worse than an hour of "It's T-Shirt Time!!!" I dunno, but if I was a parent, I would give my child my nintendo all-star collection (minus the Wii, because I despise it!), and hope rap isn't nearly as popular as it is today (which it may not be, because there was an inverse change between rock & rap, where rap declined 10%). I guess I would let them play graphic games when they reach a certain maturity, not age, because I would be overprotective otherwise. But, seriously, how dis I get to talking about fictional kids?? Oh yea! I guess the gist of my rant is that parents need to supervise their child, gain control, and ask themselves, "do I really want my child like this." I feel like they are influencing the next generation in more ways than they think.Feel free to tear this apart lol, I'm just rambling because of my former current issues course. :P

Hey look I almost have 1000 posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, but if I was a parent, I would give my child my nintendo all-star collection (minus the Wii, because I despise it!), and hope rap isn't nearly as popular as it is today (which it may not be, because there was an inverse change between rock & rap, where rap declined 10%). I guess I would let them play graphic games when they reach a certain maturity, not age, because I would be overprotective otherwise. But, seriously, how dis I get to talking about fictional kids?? Oh yea! I guess the gist of my rant is that parents need to supervise their child, gain control, and ask themselves, "do I really want my child like this." I feel like they are influencing the next generation in more ways than they think.Feel free to tear this apart lol, I'm just rambling because of my former current issues course. :P

No, this is a great point. I don't feel that society as a whole is going downhill, but I do feel that there are some disturbing trends now. I think we are encountering a new way of communicating and there are unfortunately rough spots along the way. I feel that the new media, more than anything has the potential to take time away from parents that the could be spending with their kids. My mother sure spends a lot of time on her iPad (probably not as much time as I spend on my computer, but a lot), but fortunately my brother and I are both at the age where we no longer need supervision.Many of these new trends are simply a matter of taste. Sure, I don't really like today's pop music, but you shouldn't ban something for bad taste. I grew up listening to the same music as my father, and that has influenced me far more than what I hear on the radio.

There's a dozen selves inside you, trying to be the one to run the dials

[BZPRPG Profiles]

Hatchi - Talli - Ranok - Lucira - FerellisMorie - Fanai - Akiyo - Yukie - Shuuan - Ilykaed - Pradhai - Ipsudir

And some aren't even on your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a great point. I don't feel that society as a whole is going downhill, but I do feel that there are some disturbing trends now. I think we are encountering a new way of communicating and there are unfortunately rough spots along the way. I feel that the new media, more than anything has the potential to take time away from parents that the could be spending with their kids. My mother sure spends a lot of time on her iPad (probably not as much time as I spend on my computer, but a lot), but fortunately my brother and I are both at the age where we no longer need supervision.

I'd like to point out yet again that the amount of time parents spend with children has been increasing, there may be a tiny dip here or there in your experience or others' due to iPads or computer games, but there really is an overall trend toward more family togetherness (even including the extremely busy schedules of many modern parents).But anyway, I totally agree with all of the taste stuff.Oh, and one more thing, ADHD is currently diagnosed a lot, bordering on over-diagnosis, and it's not exactly a good idea to try to assign a disorder to someone whom one hardly knows.~ BioGio Edited by BioGio

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...