The Next Generation Of Kids

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Well, the fact is, if someone is forced to spend their childhood behaving like an adult - child stars are a good example of this - they grow up to be a bit cracked. That bit of time where you're immature, crack jokes you shouldn't, make bad decisions and scrape your knee once in a while (or somebody else's knee, I'm not picky) is necessary for the healthy human mind.Also, Alex... empirical. Not imperial. You may as well use your next name-change to start calling yourself Master Malaprop.

[BioGio]

Well, the fact is, if someone is forced to spend their childhood behaving like an adult - child stars are a good example of this - they grow up to be a bit cracked. That bit of time where you're immature, crack jokes you shouldn't, make bad decisions and scrape your knee once in a while (or somebody else's knee, I'm not picky) is necessary for the healthy human mind.

Shadows, why do you do so much better at saying what I'm trying to say? Anyway, I'd like to point out that not all child stars end up too messed up (e.g., Neil Patrick Harris). But, yes, being childish and taking time to mature really is vital to the development of maturity and overall a healthy psyche.~ BioGioEDIT: Thanks for pointing that out, Didonchu. Edited January 31, 2012 by BioGio

[Sybre]

Well, the fact is, if someone is forced to spend their childhood behaving like an adult - child stars are a good example of this - they grow up to be a bit cracked. That bit of time where you're immature, crack jokes you shouldn't, make bad decisions and scrape your knee once in a while (or somebody else's knee, I'm not picky) is necessary for the healthy human mind.

Shadows, why do you do so much better at saying what I'm trying to say? Anyway, I'd like to point out that not all child stars end up too messed up (e.g., Neil Patrick Harris). But, yes, being childish and taking time to mature really is vital to the development of maturity and~ BioGio

And what? But you are totally correct there.

[CroMagnonMan]

I disagree. If I just said: Nuh-uh you're wrong here's what I think, then we'd get nowhere, since I'd just be posting ideas--and it's easy to refute those. Anyway, any discussion that's even tangentially related to sociology or psychology does in fact require a substantial degree of empirical evidence. Just saying, "People are better/worse/anything now!" doesn't mean anything.

I think "we'd get nowhere" is a bit excessive. The exchanging of viewpoints is one of the things I value most about discussions like this, so to suggest that there isn't anything to get out of it leaves me somewhat perplexed and at a loss. It's especially flummoxing to learn that the second part of my post -- the part I felt most strongly about and thought had the most to say -- has no practical application in your mind.To me, we are all just trying to come to a personal understanding of the world around us, with or without empirical proof (usually without), and considering or absorbing other people's views is an integral part of that. We have the power to reason, after all... I don't think either of us is the sort of person to just say "Nuh-uh you're wrong." But if you're not interested, that's fine.Anyway, I'm not really big on the "violence in media" debate either. Just wanted to see if I could introduce another spin on the discussion. Thanks for the responses.~QMark

[Zeddy]

About the violence in video games thing, after having done "extensive" research for a paper, I'd just like to say that there's still no concrete link between playing these games and being more violent or aggressive in real life. Parental involvement plays a HUGE part in counteracting the effects of this violence. For parents who monitored their play and were generally more involved in what their kids buy and play, their kids were less aggressive than those whose parents didn't bother.AND, the chances are the competition involved in the games plays a larger role in aggression than the content. A kid playing multiplayer on CoD will probably be screaming insults at random opponents (the average 12 year old on CoD ), and since there are no consequences, they'll probably be less inhibited in real ife than "normal" kids in provoking people etc.So I guess violence doesn't make that much of a difference.

[Axilus Prime]

@Idunnolol because you said me being 15 puts me in the "kid category". And as I said I was under the impression that meant "10 and under." Annnnnnyway...I do know for a fact that violent games and movies (whether you're gonna blame the parents or the companies, I don't really care at all) aren't the source of violent behavior. Because I know a lot of people in my class who LOVE those kinds of things and yet despise fighting, and some of those people would be able to fight if they tried. Conclusion: The source of excessive violence is the person being a complete fool.

[Makaru]

"Kid" is anyone your junior by ~5 years.It has been subjective to the user since it was used as slang in the 16th century.For example, you are all most likely kids to me.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Makaru

[Legolover-361]

[...]To those who say the rude kids are an exception: I've been around schoolkids almost my entire life, and in my experience most of them (not all, but most) use profanity (Oh no! I'm really against that whole idea that "bad words" mean anything--it's all just the idea behind their use, but I can tell that you're going to be steadfast in your idea, so I'll just leave this alone.) [Yeah, good idea. ], joke about adult topics ("Adult topics"--if I know what you mean, which I may not--have always been a part of the human experience, and I don't think that kids should have to not know or joke about some fact of nature. Joking about "adult topics" is simply a natural result of understanding them--and testing the boundaries of what one can say about them [i.e., being a kid or adolescent].) [but the kids don't seem to understand those topics. I'm not sure what you think I'm talking about, but try thinking of bad things that happen in the world, then imagine kids treating those bad things like jokes.], and play M-rated video games that I honestly don't think some of them are ready for. I think the peer pressure-ridden environment of school contributes to kids' behaviors, which makes me question how mature they'll become by the time they enter college. (People tend to mature with time; your argument apparently hinges on the idea that they won't.) [My argument hinges on the idea that they might not mature -- it is a possibility -- and that careful (not necessarily strict) upbringing is required.] (Remember, this is only from my experience.) [...]I don't see many positive culture trends in society, myself. It seems that people are growing used to curse words and greater (sometimes unnecessary) violence in media, parents letting their kids do whatever they want, selfishness, etc. -- I know such qualities were still present in the past, but the fact that they're still here isn't very positive in and of itself. (People just don't change. Individuals do. They see their childish mistakes and learn from them. Humanity isn't going to have some random enlightenment, and kids won't start acting like adults until you let them act like kids, learn, and mature.) I can't say much more about society's current trends without getting too political for BZPower (I think people are campaigning for equality in a lot of wrong ways [i must be really dense--I [i]am[/i] really tired--, because I don't really understand how you can want to say that you're against campaigning for equality.] [Allow me to explain: A lot of equality campaigns hinge on trying to "overcome differences". But by saying you need to overcome differences, you're implying that there's a difference in the first place. By starting programs for minorities, you're trying to cater to them and at the same time you're alienating other people. And what's more, surveys are still being taken based on gender / race / etc.; people seem to think that having a certain number of different races together is mandatory; thus, we're still in the mental stage where we beleive there are differences. When some campaign decides to forget the idea of "races" altogether (after all, different races are seen as different mainly because of the amount of melanin in their skin) and say that we're all human and little differences don't matter, then I'll agree.], but I won't say any more than that); until we start spreading beyond Earth and constructing the basis for an interstellar civilization, I won't be particularly impressed. also lol.[...]EDIT:

I've also noticed that kids are maturing faster, even though they may not be able to handle it. I think that's the main problem. You see these 8 year olds thrust into the world with their phones and iPads and how do you expect them to react? They're kids, so naturally they'll pretend they're the center of the universe and you're some puny being who should submit to them.

I think it's less "maturing faster" and more "trying to mature faster", but otherwise I agree with this sentiment. But don't you want kids to mature faster? Am I misunderstanding everthing you've said? GAH, I'm going insane! (Okay that's it no more internet.) [Lol. Well, I know I'm not particuarly keen on becoming an adult too soon; I miss my days of naive innocence, when I was ignorant about all the problems in the world. Humans need time to mature. Of course maturation time is different for different individuals, but there's no need to rush when rushing might cause unnecessary stress or misunderstanding that might carry over into your adult years.]

My replies [are in bracketed, bold text.] Edited January 31, 2012 by Legolover-361

[Toa Zaz]

Well, the fact is, if someone is forced to spend their childhood behaving like an adult - child stars are a good example of this - they grow up to be a bit cracked. That bit of time where you're immature, crack jokes you shouldn't, make bad decisions and scrape your knee once in a while (or somebody else's knee, I'm not picky) is necessary for the healthy human mind.Also, Alex... empirical. Not imperial. You may as well use your next name-change to start calling yourself Master Malaprop.

A lot of the time, child stars go bad because their roles don't allow them to "grow up," so they go out of their way to be more mature. If they were raised in an environment that allowed them to mature, this stuff wouldn't happen. My point is, often kids go bad not because they're being matured to fast, but because they aren't.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

I'm afraid you've got it backwards. Working as an actor or musician forces you to behave in a way that is outwardly more mature - there's no time in a busy schedule for things like nap-time. Once they're at the point where they've got a bit of independence, they often end up trying to get back to the childhood they never really had, and thus sort of move backwards from the forced maturity of their earlier years.

[pls respond]

@Idunnolol because you said me being 15 puts me in the "kid category". And as I said I was under the impression that meant "10 and under."

you might want to reread my post. i called your brother a kid, not you.

[Padishah Mehmet II]

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

And it just so happens those are the best games. Those are the games with the best plots and the most realism. Adolescents have this problem - speaking from experience here - we consider ourselves mature enough to handle it. And honestly I don't see why we aren't. We're exposed every day to it anyway by talking to other adolescents. What do you guys plan to do to make kids and teenagers weep megalitres of tears whenever they see a person get murdered? Heck, weep megalitres of tears just because that person was human? How would you achieve this? ... Oh right, right, it's unachievable. Unless you would like to murder all of the world's population of the ages 7-18 right now.Doesn't matter anyway. In considering ourselves mature enough to handle it, it's kind of logical that we won't be playing children's games. It's the same as like when somebody here used the allegory of being brought to a party and told to sit with your six year old cousins instead of being put at the adults' table like everyone barely a year older than you. You can't expect us to give away Skyrim, The Witcher or Dragon Age for Pacman or Tangled: The Videogame.-Dovydas Edited February 2, 2012 by Dovydas of Gulet

[otter]

Hmm...I've felt that way about a lot of younger people I know, actually. They seem to think that they're big and tough because that's what their games tell them, I'd say. And, somewhat unrelated, my younger cousins (who are 6 and 8 years old, respectively) love to listen to LMFAO and watch the videos. I think I need therapy now.Also, is it a bad thing If I feel the same way about the people who are 'my' age?

[Legolover-361]

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

And it just so happens those are the best games. Those are the games with the best plots and the most realism.

Not necessarily. You yourself said that you liked Portal 2, an E10 game, better than Skyrim, an M-rated game. M-rated games have their place, but they aren't automatically better just because they're more adult; if more good games are adult, well, maybe their creators should think about creating a more kid-friendly game to break some stereotypes. You don't need blood and adult content to enjoy a video game.

Adolescents have this problem - speaking from experience here - we consider ourselves mature enough to handle it. And honestly I don't see why we aren't. We're exposed every day to it anyway by talking to other adolescents. What do you guys plan to do to make kids and teenagers weep megalitres of tears whenever they see a person get murdered? Heck, weep megalitres of tears just because that person was human? How would you achieve this? ... Oh right, right, it's unachievable. Unless you would like to murder all of the world's population of the ages 7-18 right now.

Tears aren't the problem; inner emotions are. In simplest terms: When you think of death, do you think of war and life's finiteness, or do you think of "awesome" headshots in Call of Duty or another first-person shooter? If you think the latter, you probably don't appreciate the reality of death.I personally know someone who thinks he's ready for violent video games. He's not. Just because you think something doesn't automatically make it true.

Doesn't matter anyway. In considering ourselves mature enough to handle it, it's kind of logical that we won't be playing children's games. It's the same as like when somebody here used the allegory of being brought to a party and told to sit with your six year old cousins instead of being put at the adults' table like everyone barely a year older than you. You can't expect us to give away Skyrim, The Witcher or Dragon Age for Pacman or Tangled: The Videogame.

Replace Pac-Man and Tangled: The Video Game with Portal 2, Kinect Sports and Kinect Sports: Season 2, and the Ace Attorney series.

[Padishah Mehmet II]

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

And it just so happens those are the best games. Those are the games with the best plots and the most realism.

Not necessarily. You yourself said that you liked Portal 2, an E10 game, better than Skyrim, an M-rated game. M-rated games have their place, but they aren't automatically better just because they're more adult; if more good games are adult, well, maybe their creators should think about creating a more kid-friendly game to break some stereotypes. You don't need blood and adult content to enjoy a video game.

I certainly agree with the last sentence. Allow me to rephrase myself: "As things stand, some of the best games are M-rated." Blood and adult-content do not make those games good. It's just that there's blood and adult content in good games that deserve to be played. They're art. Art shouldn't be classified as adult or not adult, because why not then, instead, refuse to let your kids go to a renaissance art museum because the classical painters often painted naked women? And it usually is that in fact M-rated games are the ones that make you think of serious topics such as life's finiteness: while the E and E10-rated games you mentioned are genius, none of them are quite mature enough - I mean proper maturity, not blood and adult content - to make you think of them. Portal is a bit of a comedy game as things stand. Ace Attorney isn't too inherently serious either. And Kinect Sports has nothing to make you think about to begin with. Call of Duty and similar games are simply bad games, IMO, first and foremost, and only then are they M-rated games. You shouldn't write down all M-rated games because a sour apple ruins the bunch. I've known games to get rated M or T just because they're "too complex" for children to understand, read, they make you think. -Dovydas Edited February 2, 2012 by Dovydas of Gulet

[Queen of Liars]

I'd like to say a few things about violence in media and the supposed violence of children resulting from it while we’re still on the subject, seeing as I recently studied this as part of my A-Level Sociology. This might get a bit lengthy, but bear with me.There has been a fair amount of research done into this over the past 20 or so years, and most of it has pretty much concluded against the idea that watching violence in the media, or playing violent video games causes people to go and commit violence.The only notable piece of research that supports the idea was done by Newson, who found that being exposed to media violence can lead to ‘copycat’ violence by children. However, the only reason why her research is often cited so much and was widely believed is because it was one of the first real studies conducted into it, and it was right after the James Bulger case (in 1993 two 10-year old boys murdered another you child, Bulger, and most of the mass media blamed a violent movie that there wasn’t even any evidence the children have seen).Other researchers have shown that Newson’s research was deeply flawed, not least of these flaws being the fact that it was mainly based on a laboratory experiment, and this type of research is well known to have very little validity due to the artificial conditions the people being observed are in. Further research has showed that children are not as media illiterate as most assumed. Buckingham has done a study that quite clearly showed that children are able to differentiate between real and fictional violence. The last notable large-scale research on how children are affected when television first enters their lives was conducted in 1995 in St Helena, which received television for the first time that year. The study looked at children’s social behaviour before and after the introduction of television and has shown no change at all.I’ll grant you that this was over 15 years ago, but a study of such scale is pretty much impossible now, and smaller and more recent research has shown the same results.I think that this whole notion that violence in the media directly causes violence in children is just another moral panic for the mass media to spread, much like immigration and youth crime. Movies and video games are just being used as a scapegoat for society’s faults, ignoring things like peer-pressure, families, childhood trauma and mental illness. As a child, your primary socialisation comes from your parents or guardians, and if there is a problem, it probably has roots there.So yeah, that's my take on this whole media violence thing.

[CroMagnonMan]

It's just that there's blood and adult content in good games that deserve to be played. They're art. Art shouldn't be classified as adult or not adult, because why not then, instead, refuse to let your kids go to a renaissance art museum because the classical painters often painted naked women?

Anything can be deemed "art" -- art can have any sort of content, it can be made any sort of way. That being the case, just because it's labelled "art" doesn't make it more or less appropriate for a younger audience. As for paintings of naked women, that just depends on how you look at it. But then, you're making a questionable step in equating one kind of "adult" with all kinds.By what line of reasoning do you think art "shouldn't" be classified as adult or not adult? Doesn't that seem a bit idealistic to you? Sure, I can say art "shouldn't" be categorized that way, but then why not say it cannot be categorized at all, say by genre or technique or tone? But that's an unrealistic demand because that's not how the human world works. "Adult/not adult" is just another category we use to understand art, and to distinguish between audiences who can and cannot appreciate it. Just as a certain audience will not appreciate a genre of music or a literary style (or a kind of video game, I guess), it should be readily apparent that certain age groups will, generally speaking, not be capable of appreciating (or "handling") "adult" art.

And it usually is that in fact M-rated games are the ones that make you think of serious topics such as life's finiteness: while the E and E10-rated games you mentioned are genius, none of them are quite mature enough - I mean proper maturity, not blood and adult content - to make you think of them. ... I've known games to get rated M or T just because they're "too complex" for children to understand, read, they make you think.

Could you provide some examples of these games?While it may be true what you say, art can only give you what you are willing (or able) to put into it. Nothing is so powerful that it makes anyone think without exception. It is reasonable to assert that some forms of art will indeed be "too complex" for some ages, which can mean that it will either go over their heads or, worse, the meaning will be skewed altogether, which is what one may wish to avoid by withholding "adult" art. A mishandled concept in the hands of the unprepared can be quite bad... I should know. Of course, if you observe things differently and think some of these games really are suitable for children, you may be right. That's just a risk that goes along with this sort of system, subjective as it is. That doesn't mean either the adult category or M-Rating should be rid of altogether.~QMark

[Jean Valjean]

I remember when I was in kindergarten and I liked to brag about how strong my father was, a hard-working carpenter with tools all around the house. Then I got into an argument with another kid about whose daddy was stronger, and it centered around who could come up with the most dramatic hyperbole to describe how large their muscles were when they flexed. I was so clever as to quip "My dad can squeeze his muscles all the way to the moon!"So there you have it: asides from my religion, the biggest thing in the universe was my dad and he could beat anyone up.It made a little sense for me to think that, considering that he spanked me frequently for so much as failing to get ready in the morning, and as it turned out it gave me real anger issues that persisted into my early teens. They still linger around and I guess that I'll have to accept that anger is always going to be a part of who I am.That wasn't all there was. I remember there were also the kids who beat me up every day on the bus in middle school, going so far as to pull down my pants, and there was the gang of kids that beat me up on the playground and the girls who demanded that I push the merry-go-round as fast as possible. There were the people who played unfairly in every game and excluded me from team sports because I was awkward. There were people who went to the teacher and blamed me for things that I didn't do to get me in trouble, and there were kids who called me by swear words and laughed when I got in trouble when I used those words when explaining to the teacher what they were calling me. In that environment the only way for someone to hold his head high was to pick on those who were weaker than him and use his physical strength (of which I had a considerable amount) to get revenge on the bullies on the playground.Fast forward nearly a decade later and here I am, an eccentric intellectual with his brain lost somewhere in the Eagle Nebula contemplating all the things that I do not fully know and understand. Of course, I was always that way, but I'm that person now minus the physical violence. I try hard to be an altruist and part of that is leading me to strongly consider joining the Air Force to help others, even though that takes away from other near and dear pursuits.I guess the point I'm trying to reach here is that when I hear people talking about this generation of kids, I look back and I remember what it was like for me. My community is outstanding, but childhood for all its nostalgia wasn't a pretty picture. We were immature and constantly trying to prove ourselves through superficial means. We constantly wanted to be bigger and manlier (or in the case of girls, they wanted to be better than the boys), and one way of proving that was through winning. If we weren't playing sports, we'd still find a way to constantly be the winner wherever we went, and a lot of that resulted in bullying. As bad as it is, I have to admit to my human nature and confess that bullying felt good. It really did. So when other people wonder "how can a person live with themselves being a bully?" I can answer that question. It's different when you're a child because you don't think about it as much, because the savage social structure is just part of the unrelenting energy gushing out of your body and your mind.Yet somehow we all changed. I met one of the popular kids who had a ton of bullies for bodyguards many years later and he admitted that he was young and immature. Somehow, in spite of everything, we found our way. It doesn't matter who we were when we were children because we grow up. We make decisions. We move on. In part we all have to thank our parents and community for helping to hold our hands and pull us all in the right direction as we all become truly ready to face the world.Now is this next generation of kids different from ours? Of course. I still remember when people used The Brick as the wireless phone of choice and most phones still had chords. I remember and still use VCR players. I remember the good old music of the 90s with a fondness that won't go away (and I also have a taste for 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, and baroque music). I remember growing up thinking America was the entire world because there were no other superpowers anyone talked about. I remember the period of Pax Americana before the World Trade Center was destroyed.That's my world growing up. Now kids have cell phones that are more powerful than the computers in NASA during Apollo 13,, which are still an alien concept to me. The latest accessory is the Blu-Ray player and/or a subscription to Netflix, while films are now popularly expected to have CGI effects instead of costumes and magician's tricks. 3D viewing has come back like an atavistic strike of lightning. America's in decline and China's being groomed to become the next superpower, signalling a major shift in world power while at the same time there's also a major shift local power as social demographics within America are going where they have never gone before. My youngest sister was born on September 11, 2001, and the world she lives in has always been somewhat post-apocalyptic, with the scars of the nation's wounds still in vivid and clear memory.Not all of it is bad. Not all of it is good. The only thing I'm immediately decrying is the pop music, which not even my sister likes, but the culture is definitely changing. With the new culture communities will see themselves differently, and they will raise their children in a way that will, of course, be slightly different than that of my generation.Mind you, I believe that the only real thing that changes the way young children live their lives right now is the technology with cell phones and computers, which makes everything I knew stone-age in comparison. The wordlview of a child isn't very far-reaching and is mostly limited to things that they can have fun with. I still wonder how I'm going to incorporate the wide-spread use of digital technology into parenting.While we're figuring out where our latest generation is heading, we should at least take a moment to remember where we've been. The world is always making itself new as time grows old, and as that happens so do we invent our latest way of dealing with it. When our children grow up, they won't be the same because their worldview will broaden and so will the way they deal with the world. Don't lose hope because of where they are now because they will become more mature, regardless of cultural expectations, which are set by us adults leading the way. Have faith.Your Honor,Tyrannosaurus Kraggh

[Toa Zaz]

QuestionMark-- so, by your logic, kids are totally incapable of handling violence, but nudity is just fine? I'd imagine it to be more of an all-or-nothing thing.

[Alex Humva]

QuestionMark-- so, by your logic, kids are totally incapable of handling violence, but nudity is just fine? I'd imagine it to be more of an all-or-nothing thing.

That's the general belief over in Europe from what I understand. Over here in American it's the exact opposite. I've seen people with degrees in sociology have trouble dealing with this issue so I can't make an honest claim to my ideas being correct, but violence can effect a person anywhere in their enviroment, though typically it takes multiple forms in multiple places to begin harming someone's psyche. Last time I checked though kids haven't been scarred for life because they saw a nude greek statue. :

[Franz Joseph Haydn]

I find a lot of these opinions to be very interesting observations on what kids act like. In my city, if a little kid attempted to do any of these things, he most likely would end up bruised and beaten. Not by me, personally, but let me just say that my area is known for occasional spats of gang activity. So either the kids are going to be enlisted by the gangs, or be beat up by the gangs. And I come off as a classy fellow, always attempting to stray away from kids in my age range for that very reason. They're always "Gangstas" and they always try to one up other people. Just because I drive a beat up car and wear a fedora doesn't mean I won't hesitate to mess you up if you attack me or threaten me. But I would never hurt a kid. I would never punch or even touch someone younger then me. I'd pity them and tell them to stop playing so many video games. I'd let him go on his way and have a go at one uping another person.

[Toa Zaz]

QuestionMark-- so, by your logic, kids are totally incapable of handling violence, but nudity is just fine? I'd imagine it to be more of an all-or-nothing thing.

That's the general belief over in Europe from what I understand. Over here in American it's the exact opposite. I've seen people with degrees in sociology have trouble dealing with this issue so I can't make an honest claim to my ideas being correct, but violence can effect a person anywhere in their enviroment, though typically it takes multiple forms in multiple places to begin harming someone's psyche. Last time I checked though kids haven't been scarred for life because they saw a nude greek statue. :

And last time I checked, kids haven't grown up to be criminals because they played violent video games. They're fine.

[Alex Humva]

And last time I checked, kids haven't grown up to be criminals because they played violent video games. They're fine.

I was claiming nothing of the kind. After all, I played all sorts of violent FPS-s years ago and I like to think of myself as a respectable citizen. But again, it's not so clear cut; different people respond differently to different things. We can only make general assumptions here.

[Legolover-361]

I don't think adult video games lead to violence directly. 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.Also, I've heard that there were rumors about various school shootings being triggered by violent movies, but the few shootings I do know about were caused by a kid being bullied and shunned so much, he just got sick of it all. I believe in those cases the kids were pushed to the brink even without the push of media, though it's entirely possible watching a violent film could have served as the final push to violent thoughts.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

I know for sure that being exposed to adult content too early can lead to immature behavior.

How.Big claims need big evidence. If you don't provide the latter, I don't have to take the former seriously.

[Angel Beat]

Supposedly, racing games cause car crashes. :S

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Yes, yes, and Mario made me stomp on turtles. :PThe only person to underestimate the competence of children worse than some of the people here was Jean Piaget.

[Waffles]

Or Jack Thompson.You know what really corrupts kids? Homophobia, religious extremism, and other forms of intolerance, which are definitely much more prevalent.

[Queen of Liars]

I don't think adult video games lead to violence directly. 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.Also, I've heard that there were rumors about various school shootings being triggered by violent movies, but the few shootings I do know about were caused by a kid being bullied and shunned so much, he just got sick of it all. I believe in those cases the kids were pushed to the brink even without the push of media, though it's entirely possible watching a violent film could have served as the final push to violent thoughts.

Do you really know for sure? How can you? As you said, there are lots of things that have to be taken into account, and most of them have nothing to do with the actual media. And really, the child's interest in the type of content means nothing. All it shows is what the person likes seeing, and not what, if any, effects it has on them.As for the school shootings, that's exactly what it is. Rumours. Fallacies used to create a moral panic that the mass media relishes in. I did a dissertation last year on whether Metal music can cause rebellion and looked quite a bit into the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, when the mass media and religious right groups blamed it on Marilyn Manson's music. When there wasn't even any proof that they even listened to his music, much like with the James Bulger case I mentioned earlier, when there was no evidence that the boys even watched the film.There is really no reason to blame movies, or Manson's music in this case, for the shootings. There is no single cause, and if there was it would definitely not be it, with countless other influences. To quote Manson from an interview about it, "The president was dropping bombs overseas, yet I'm a bad guy because I sing some rock n' roll songs. And who's a bigger influence, the president or Marilyn Manson?"This whole thing is just a media campaign of fear and people wanting to blame something else than faults of the society they live in, and being encouraged by the mass media to do it.

[Legolover-361]

I know for sure that being exposed to adult content too early can lead to immature behavior.

How.Big claims need big evidence. If you don't provide the latter, I don't have to take the former seriously.

I've said before that I know kids that don't seem to understand serious, adult concepts. Most of them are five years my junior (a few are just two, three years younger than I am), and they constantly joke about subjects that shouldn't be joked about, subjects I shouldn't be able to mention on BZPower. It's pretty sick, actually, how they don't take it seriously, when the subjects is very serious indeed.Honestly, though, it's not a "big claim". It's just the result of young people reacting to what they see.

Do you really know for sure? How can you?

Because as I stated above, I know kids who act like that because they know content I didn't know at their ages, and joke about it like it's no big deal. They're too young to seriously realize what's so bad about those subjects (there are a couple people just two, three years younger than me who are included).

As you said, there are lots of things that have to be taken into account, and most of them have nothing to do with the actual media.

All the things I listed are related to media intake in that they affect how the child deals with the information he's presented.

And really, the child's interest in the type of content means nothing. All it shows is what the person likes seeing, and not what, if any, effects it has on them.

If I'm interested in a book, I'm more likely to be inspired by it than by another, less interesting book. If I'm interested in baseball, I'm more likely to play it than play a sport like field hockey. Interests do affect how you look at something.

As for the school shootings, that's exactly what it is. Rumours. Fallacies used to create a moral panic that the mass media relishes in. I did a dissertation last year on whether Metal music can cause rebellion and looked quite a bit into the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, when the mass media and religious right groups blamed it on Marilyn Manson's music. When there wasn't even any proof that they even listened to his music, much like with the James Bulger case I mentioned earlier, when there was no evidence that the boys even watched the film.There is really no reason to blame movies, or Manson's music in this case, for the shootings. There is no single cause, and if there was it would definitely not be it, with countless other influences. To quote Manson from an interview about it, "The president was dropping bombs overseas, yet I'm a bad guy because I sing some rock n' roll songs. And who's a bigger influence, the president or Marilyn Manson?"This whole thing is just a media campaign of fear and people wanting to blame something else than faults of the society they live in, and being encouraged by the mass media to do it.

The president and Marilyn Manson are both covered by the media, right? Whether the president or the rock and roll singer / musician / whoever he is is affecting the kids, their works are still being presented to people through media -- newspapers, television, the radio. And if kids are getting to that media, the parents should watch them more, which brings us back to the concept that media, coupled with environmental factors, does have an influence.

You know what really corrupts kids? Homophobia, religious extremism, and other forms of intolerance, which are definitely much more prevalent.

Can we please not introduce those subjects? It's not as black-and-white as some people seem to think it is, and besides, such debate isn't allowed on the forums.Also, "homophobia" implies fear. Most people aren't afraid of the subject the term refers to. Edited February 3, 2012 by Legolover-361

[Queen of Liars]

I've said before that I know kids that don't seem to understand serious, adult concepts. Most of them are five years my junior (a few are just two, three years younger than I am), and they constantly joke about subjects that shouldn't be joked about, subjects I shouldn't be able to mention on BZPower. It's pretty sick, actually, how they don't take it seriously, when the subjects is very serious indeed.

And how do you know that they're joking about these things because of the media? Further, who are you to say what should be and shouldn't be joked about? And just because they joke about these things, does not mean that they don't understand them or do not think it's serious.Look at stand-up comedy. Plenty of comedians make jokes about very serious subjects that most would say they shouldn't joke about. But they show that they fully understand the seriousness of the subject and have strong opinions about it.Ever hear about how surgeons and doctors deal with patients dying in front of them by dark humour?

Because as I stated above, I know kids who act like that because they didn't know content I didn't know at their ages, and joke about it like it's no big deal. They're too young to seriously realize what's so bad about those subjects (there are a couple people just two, three years younger than me who are included).

First sentence doesn't make sense; you might want to check it through.13-14 is not that young, and again, how do you know that they don't realise how serious it is, just because they joke about it?

All the things I listed are related to media intake in that they affect how the child deals with the information he's presented.

Which means that the actual media isn't influencing them. The outside factors are influencing how they interpret information.

If I'm interested in a book, I'm more likely to be inspired by it than by another, less interesting book. If I'm interested in baseball, I'm more likely to play it than play a sport like field hockey. Interests do affect how you look at something.

Except that there is a difference between baseball and committing acts of violence. One is crime and deviance, the other is not. One you are socialised by every institution you're involved in since birth to believe is wrong, the other you're not.

The president and Marilyn Manson are both covered by the media, right? Whether the president or the rock and roll singer / musician / whoever he is is affecting the kids, their works are still being presented to people through media -- newspapers, television, the radio. And if kids are getting to that media, the parents should watch them more, which brings us back to the concept that media, coupled with environmental factors, does have an influence.

You do not need the media to know that there is a war going on. People talk about wars while they are going on. The media itself does not have an influence. The actual information may, but in this case it's the same information you would receive from talking to someone or going to see a public speech by the politicians yourself. If there is an impact, it is not the media causing it, it's the information.Yes the media can, and often does, contain ideological messages, but these are not ones that tell you to go out and commit mass murder. However, I can't really talk more about it without getting into Marxism, which would then have to lead to politics which is not allowed on BZP.Also, are you suggesting that children should not be allowed to get to the news? Because then they will not know about things like war, will not know about things like innocent civilians dying in them and therefore may not realise how serious it is and "joke about subjects that shouldn't be joked about". Which would contradict your whole argument, don't you think?

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

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

[BioGio]

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.I'll concede that your points are, predictably, relatively moderate (compared to the earlier media scapegoating and panic), and you're probably just about spot-on about the whole interest thing (although that can work in many ways--positive and negative). 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.Waffles, that's totally correct, although I'm hesitant to touch the topic much more. I will point out that "-phobia" also means "aversion to," making the coinage quite valid.~ BioGio

Edited February 3, 2012 by BioGio

[Noxryn]

Because as I stated above, I know kids who act like that because they didn't know content I didn't know at their ages, and joke about it like it's no big deal. They're too young to seriously realize what's so bad about those subjects (there are a couple people just two, three years younger than me who are included).

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.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?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.

All the things I listed are related to media intake in that they affect how the child deals with the information he's presented.

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"?

If I'm interested in a book, I'm more likely to be inspired by it than by another, less interesting book. If I'm interested in baseball, I'm more likely to play it than play a sport like field hockey. Interests do affect how you look at something.

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.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.

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). Edited February 3, 2012 by Spink

[Legolover-361]

And how do you know that they're joking about these things because of the media? Further, who are you to say what should be and shouldn't be joked about? And just because they joke about these things, does not mean that they don't understand them or do not think it's serious.

I'm another kid. I don't like people joking about actions that can harm other people in more ways than one. It's impolite and unsympathetic for people who actually fall victim to such actions in reality.If they understood the subject, they wouldn't joke about it. It's that serious of a subject.

Look at stand-up comedy. Plenty of comedians make jokes about very serious subjects that most would say they shouldn't joke about. But they show that they fully understand the seriousness of the subject and have strong opinions about it.

I'm on the fence about those comedians. I've never watched any of their routines, though...

Ever hear about how surgeons and doctors deal with patients dying in front of them by dark humour?

No. That's kind of... odd, really. Are you sure that's true?

13-14 is not that young[...]

In the grand scheme of life, thirteen-fourteen years old is very young. I'm sixteen but I still consider myself young.

Which means that the actual media isn't influencing them. The outside factors are influencing how they interpret information.

The media is part of the big picture. The outside factors are part of it, too. Remove any one factor and the behavioral traits won't develop in the same way.

Except that there is a difference between baseball and committing acts of violence. One is crime and deviance, the other is not. One you are socialised by every institution you're involved in since birth to believe is wrong, the other you're not.

...I'm not talking about crime here. I'm talking about rude behavior. From what I've heard, media does very little to cause crime; living conditions, social factors, and monetary problems are more likely causes.

You do not need the media to know that there is a war going on. People talk about wars while they are going on. The media itself does not have an influence. The actual information may, but in this case it's the same information you would receive from talking to someone or going to see a public speech by the politicians yourself.

The media still can have an influence. People also have an influence. All the factors together cause behavioral changes.

Yes the media can, and often does, contain ideological messages, but these are not ones that tell you to go out and commit mass murder.

I wasn't referring to mass murder, so I don't think there's any use debating this part of your post further.

Also, are you suggesting that children should not be allowed to get to the news? Because then they will not know about things like war, will not know about things like innocent civilians dying in them and therefore may not realise how serious it is and "joke about subjects that shouldn't be joked about". Which would contradict your whole argument, don't you think?

No, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to get to whatever they want without supervision. Would you let your kids watch the news without being there to explain what's going on?

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. Edited February 3, 2012 by Legolover-361

[Queen of Liars]

I'm another kid. I don't like people joking about actions that can harm other people in more ways than one. It's impolite and unsympathetic for people who actually fall victim to such actions in reality.If they understood the subject, they wouldn't joke about it. It's that serious of a subject.

The problem with that is that it's all your opinion. I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree with you, but it's your opinion that it's inappropriate so there's really no discussion to be had here.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.

No. That's kind of... odd, really. Are you sure that's true?

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?

In the grand scheme of life, thirteen-fourteen years old is very young. I'm sixteen but I still consider myself young.

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.

The media is part of the big picture. The outside factors are part of it, too. Remove any one factor and the behavioral traits won't develop in the same way.

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'm not talking about crime here. I'm talking about rude behavior. From what I've heard, media does very little to cause crime; living conditions, social factors, and monetary problems are more likely causes.

Then just take out the word 'crime' out of my post and stick with 'deviance' and what I said still applies.

The media still can have an influence. People also have an influence. All the factors together cause behavioral changes.

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

I wasn't referring to mass murder, so I don't think there's any use debating this part of your post further.

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

No, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to get to whatever they want without supervision. Would you let your kids watch the news without being there to explain what's going on?

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.

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.

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.Also, Spink, I'd just like to say that I agree with everything you've said.

[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.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Sweetroll Thief Alex Humva

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

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.

[Makaru]

I often play games like Skyrim and Half Life.I have played these games since I was well under the age appropriateness gap.I also hold open doors for strangers and say "thank you" where it is not necessary.But I'm also Canadian, so my anecdotal evidence is compromised.

[Canama]

I don't think there is a change. I think this is just nostalgia. You are viewing the past with rose-tinted glasses, unable to see that your generation - and quite possibly you personally - were no better.*Didn't read rest of topic*-Canama

[CroMagnonMan]

QuestionMark-- so, by your logic, kids are totally incapable of handling violence, but nudity is just fine? I'd imagine it to be more of an all-or-nothing thing.

No, I wouldn't be willing to say how much violence kids are capable of handling. But generally, yes, I stand by what I said about nudity, as long as we are still talking about nudity alone and not with any sexual context.The idea of lumping nudity and violence together is a strange one to me. They are very different things. I suppose an adult has the luxury of correlating the two and placing them in the same category, with both being in a broad sense "socially unacceptable", but that doesn't mean a kid will react to them as though they were somehow the same sort of thing. I think it's a mistake to make those kinds of generalizations.~QMark