5 ms·

How do you know you aren't just a child with an overactive imagination who think's he's an adult? Since you say a child couldn't reliably tell the difference...

How do you know you aren't just a child with an overactive imagination who think's he's an adult? Since you say a child couldn't reliably tell the difference... It's really dehumanizing to take a very large group of people and basically say they are incapable of decent thought like you and need to be controlled. [edit: added the word "reliably"]

tptacek 16y ago
My guess is that the answer to your rhetorical question is "science".
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Which science?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Developmental psychology. Avoid exposing preschoolers to violent media and video games. It's correlated with increased aggression and poorer judgement. It's also --- and here I'll have a harder time citing sources --- cruel. I felt bad for the little boy when he felt bad about "running someone over". There was no reason to expose him to this kind of emotional confusion. It is not "dehumanizing" to suggest that a 4 year old doesn't have the same cognitive function as a 14 year old.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Even if I accept that it's correlated, that doesn't mean the exposure is bad in any way. Games can be correlated to aggressiveness but also reduce aggressiveness. Correlation isn't causation.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      It's correlated with increased aggression and poorer judgement. And for the love of Dr. Spock, don't let them play Cops and Robbers, either!
      - tptacek 16y ago
        How peer-reviewed were Spock's conclusions?
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    We don't even need to cite "science." Just having been a child at one time, and now an adult, and seen and interacted with children, should give plenty of experiential evidence consistent with my original comment's claim. This is really not rocket science or esoteric: it's actually pretty much part of everyday common sense for a lot of adults, especially for anybody that is a parent or who has taken care of children professionally. No academic paper citing is needed.
mkramlich 16y ago
exercise: read your 2nd sentence. now read again my 1st 2 sentences. compare and contrast. :) EDIT: after this post you edited yours to add "reliably". Good, that loosens it up and you may no longer be in logical error.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Exercise: explain, in English, what your point is supposed to be.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    exercise: it's good for you but seriously, my original comment contained my point, and was in English. I'm now done with this thread. :)
rjett 16y ago
Joking? I'll bite anyways... There has been myriad research detailing the adverse effects of children (aka developing humans) viewing violence, sex, drugs, etc. I think four year-olds safely qualify as developing. If stuff like this isn't alarming enough, consider a more extreme example like the two year old in Indonesia who smokes a couple packs of cigarettes per day http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/indonesia.smoking.baby/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/indonesia.smokin... . You're hurting these kids' chances (of living a healthy life/of relating to their peers/of being successful/ etc) For those hounding me for citations, here's something I quickly rustled up: From an economist: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22743802/Learning-Violence-Young http://www.scribd.com/doc/22743802/Learning-Violence-Young From a social psychologist: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2038214/Video-Game-Violence http://www.scribd.com/doc/2038214/Video-Game-Violence From a the Institution of Youth Development in Washington DC: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33292276/Violence http://www.scribd.com/doc/33292276/Violence
- xenophanes 16y ago
  I don't think it's fair to compare playing a video game in which one does bad things with actually smoking in real life. As to the studies, I've read some such studies and deemed them invalid or unscientific. Can you cite one that you would stand behind as rigorous and accurate? [Edit: Can you site ONE study that you will STAND BEHIND? One you've read in full. Not three studies you just googled. I can google studies too...]
  - duck 16y ago
    Do you have kids?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You are on very shaky ground with this line of argument, which attempts to cast aspersions at basically all of psychology because of controversies unrelated to the the issue we're actually talking about. Yes, there are questions about whether playing "Mature"-themed games actually causes problems for teenagers. Yes, there is an effort, probably ill-conceived, to restrict access to "Mature"-themed games for teenagers. We are not talking about teenagers; we're talking about a 4 year old. One simple axis of argument to observe here is the Harvard (Kutner & Olson) vs. Iowa (Anderson) debate; Kutner's book points out that much of the psych research is methodologically flawed. But both Kutner and Anderson agree that exposure to very violent games is associated with increased aggression. Kutner just doesn't want to see all games demonized for all pre-adult age groups.
mkramlich 16y ago
regarding your 2nd paragraph: let's say I were to make the claim that most babies can't walk or talk well, take care of defecatory body functions well, etc. Would you think that was dehumanizing to them? Are you saying babies should not be controlled? Let babies roam wild in the streets, in the forests, on the highways? Have you ever came into contact with babies, let alone children? :) I for one think we must control babies. The risk that they might rise up and overthrow us is just too great to ignore. :P
- xenophanes 16y ago
  > Are you saying babies should not be controlled? Most of the time a parent and his child agree about who should control something. The parent pays for the baby's food and the baby doesn't object. This is not "control" in the relevant sense because the baby prefers it be this way. And other times the baby decides on the location of his rattle. He exercises some control over his life and his parent is fine with that. The interesting case -- and the one where the notion of an adult controlling a child is most relevant and meaningful -- is when there is a disagreement. Then if the adult, say, unplugs the TV to prevent the child playing GTA, against the child's will, he is taking control of the situation and exercising control over the child's life. A wide variety of excuses are given for adults controlling children as a react to disagreements. One particularly generic and offensive one is "kids don't think so good". This sometimes takes more specific forms, e.g. "kids don't think so good on the specific issue of differentiating between virtual reality and reality" (btw, ironically, most adults are extremely bad at that same issue in some different forms, e.g. they don't really understand that when they "see" a chair the visual image is a VR rendering inside their head). Anyway, here is a fact that, ahem, adults often mess up and which many young children intuitively seem to grasp: if we accept that the ratio of stuff adults are right about to stuff children are right about is 1000:1, it does not follow that in a disagreement the adult is right (or probably right). This is because disagreements do not happen in a random sample of cases. Disagreements only happen when both parties judge that they have relevant information that the other hasn't properly taken into account. In disagreements, it's nothing but sheer unadulterated arrogance (and irrationality) to assume one is right. And to attribute this assumption to demographic characteristics of the other person is dehumanizing.
po 16y ago
A two year old is not capable of understanding that an object doesn't cease to exist when they can no longer see it. This is why peek-a-boo is enthralling to babies. There are similar developmental challenges faced by the human brain over it's lifetime. It never stops changing. At some point, we draw a line and say that it is grown up, but it's a blurry line. There is nothing de-humanizing about taking a group of people (based on age) and saying they are incapable of certain types of thought. Adding the word "decent" as you did would be adding subjectivity and moral judgement, however the parent post didn't say that. You might not remember it, but you also struggled with certain concepts: object permanence, abstract thinking, reasoning. Assuming a child is the same thing mentally as an adult is a huge mistake. We may grant them the same basic human rights, but they are absolutely not capable of the same level of thought. That's why we have a different word for them: children. At the age of 3 or 4 children are just starting to understand the concept of "same" and "different". Here's some information about childhood milestones: http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/toddler/Pages/Developmental-Milestones-3-to-4-Years-Old.aspx http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/toddler/P...
- johnyzee 16y ago
  I agree and being the father of a five year old I experience every day how little idea I have about how he understands things. As an example he is currently struggling with the idea of things being relative, so while I watch the world cup and say that one of the teams playing are a good soccer team, he will respond that then the other team must not be good. For some reason he really needs this to be true for his world to make sense. There are just so many learned realities that we as adults assume but which kids have no idea about, to the extent that we have no freaking clue about how they see the world.
  - po 16y ago
    Absolutely. Sometimes I think about what the difference between an 18 year old and a 24 year old's brain is. Or, perhaps the difference between a 30 year old and a 50 year old person. I think we have an intuitive understanding of it and it shows up in a lot of public policy debate. People talk about ageism and old people "not getting it" and older folks have a similar "kids these days" feeling. I wonder what part of that is simply due to differing world views caused by differing brain capabilities. Nobody seems to talk about that when we debate these things. I'm sure its being studied.
jemfinch 16y ago
The psychological capabilities of young children are remarkably consistent and well established in the literature. It's not unreasonable to make generalizations about them.

tptacek 16y ago

My guess is that the answer to your rhetorical question is "science".

xenophanes 16y ago
Which science?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Developmental psychology. Avoid exposing preschoolers to violent media and video games. It's correlated with increased aggression and poorer judgement. It's also --- and here I'll have a harder time citing sources --- cruel. I felt bad for the little boy when he felt bad about "running someone over". There was no reason to expose him to this kind of emotional confusion. It is not "dehumanizing" to suggest that a 4 year old doesn't have the same cognitive function as a 14 year old.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Even if I accept that it's correlated, that doesn't mean the exposure is bad in any way. Games can be correlated to aggressiveness but also reduce aggressiveness. Correlation isn't causation.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    It's correlated with increased aggression and poorer judgement. And for the love of Dr. Spock, don't let them play Cops and Robbers, either!
    - tptacek 16y ago
      How peer-reviewed were Spock's conclusions?
- mkramlich 16y ago
  We don't even need to cite "science." Just having been a child at one time, and now an adult, and seen and interacted with children, should give plenty of experiential evidence consistent with my original comment's claim. This is really not rocket science or esoteric: it's actually pretty much part of everyday common sense for a lot of adults, especially for anybody that is a parent or who has taken care of children professionally. No academic paper citing is needed.

mkramlich 16y ago

exercise: read your 2nd sentence. now read again my 1st 2 sentences. compare and contrast. :) EDIT: after this post you edited yours to add "reliably". Good, that loosens it up and you may no longer be in logical error.

xenophanes 16y ago
Exercise: explain, in English, what your point is supposed to be.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  exercise: it's good for you but seriously, my original comment contained my point, and was in English. I'm now done with this thread. :)

rjett 16y ago

Joking? I'll bite anyways... There has been myriad research detailing the adverse effects of children (aka developing humans) viewing violence, sex, drugs, etc. I think four year-olds safely qualify as developing. If stuff like this isn't alarming enough, consider a more extreme example like the two year old in Indonesia who smokes a couple packs of cigarettes per day http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/indonesia.smoking.baby/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/indonesia.smokin... . You're hurting these kids' chances (of living a healthy life/of relating to their peers/of being successful/ etc) For those hounding me for citations, here's something I quickly rustled up: From an economist: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22743802/Learning-Violence-Young http://www.scribd.com/doc/22743802/Learning-Violence-Young From a social psychologist: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2038214/Video-Game-Violence http://www.scribd.com/doc/2038214/Video-Game-Violence From a the Institution of Youth Development in Washington DC: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33292276/Violence http://www.scribd.com/doc/33292276/Violence

xenophanes 16y ago
I don't think it's fair to compare playing a video game in which one does bad things with actually smoking in real life. As to the studies, I've read some such studies and deemed them invalid or unscientific. Can you cite one that you would stand behind as rigorous and accurate? [Edit: Can you site ONE study that you will STAND BEHIND? One you've read in full. Not three studies you just googled. I can google studies too...]
- duck 16y ago
  Do you have kids?
- tptacek 16y ago
  You are on very shaky ground with this line of argument, which attempts to cast aspersions at basically all of psychology because of controversies unrelated to the the issue we're actually talking about. Yes, there are questions about whether playing "Mature"-themed games actually causes problems for teenagers. Yes, there is an effort, probably ill-conceived, to restrict access to "Mature"-themed games for teenagers. We are not talking about teenagers; we're talking about a 4 year old. One simple axis of argument to observe here is the Harvard (Kutner & Olson) vs. Iowa (Anderson) debate; Kutner's book points out that much of the psych research is methodologically flawed. But both Kutner and Anderson agree that exposure to very violent games is associated with increased aggression. Kutner just doesn't want to see all games demonized for all pre-adult age groups.

mkramlich 16y ago

regarding your 2nd paragraph: let's say I were to make the claim that most babies can't walk or talk well, take care of defecatory body functions well, etc. Would you think that was dehumanizing to them? Are you saying babies should not be controlled? Let babies roam wild in the streets, in the forests, on the highways? Have you ever came into contact with babies, let alone children? :) I for one think we must control babies. The risk that they might rise up and overthrow us is just too great to ignore. :P

xenophanes 16y ago
> Are you saying babies should not be controlled? Most of the time a parent and his child agree about who should control something. The parent pays for the baby's food and the baby doesn't object. This is not "control" in the relevant sense because the baby prefers it be this way. And other times the baby decides on the location of his rattle. He exercises some control over his life and his parent is fine with that. The interesting case -- and the one where the notion of an adult controlling a child is most relevant and meaningful -- is when there is a disagreement. Then if the adult, say, unplugs the TV to prevent the child playing GTA, against the child's will, he is taking control of the situation and exercising control over the child's life. A wide variety of excuses are given for adults controlling children as a react to disagreements. One particularly generic and offensive one is "kids don't think so good". This sometimes takes more specific forms, e.g. "kids don't think so good on the specific issue of differentiating between virtual reality and reality" (btw, ironically, most adults are extremely bad at that same issue in some different forms, e.g. they don't really understand that when they "see" a chair the visual image is a VR rendering inside their head). Anyway, here is a fact that, ahem, adults often mess up and which many young children intuitively seem to grasp: if we accept that the ratio of stuff adults are right about to stuff children are right about is 1000:1, it does not follow that in a disagreement the adult is right (or probably right). This is because disagreements do not happen in a random sample of cases. Disagreements only happen when both parties judge that they have relevant information that the other hasn't properly taken into account. In disagreements, it's nothing but sheer unadulterated arrogance (and irrationality) to assume one is right. And to attribute this assumption to demographic characteristics of the other person is dehumanizing.

po 16y ago

A two year old is not capable of understanding that an object doesn't cease to exist when they can no longer see it. This is why peek-a-boo is enthralling to babies. There are similar developmental challenges faced by the human brain over it's lifetime. It never stops changing. At some point, we draw a line and say that it is grown up, but it's a blurry line. There is nothing de-humanizing about taking a group of people (based on age) and saying they are incapable of certain types of thought. Adding the word "decent" as you did would be adding subjectivity and moral judgement, however the parent post didn't say that. You might not remember it, but you also struggled with certain concepts: object permanence, abstract thinking, reasoning. Assuming a child is the same thing mentally as an adult is a huge mistake. We may grant them the same basic human rights, but they are absolutely not capable of the same level of thought. That's why we have a different word for them: children. At the age of 3 or 4 children are just starting to understand the concept of "same" and "different". Here's some information about childhood milestones: http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/toddler/Pages/Developmental-Milestones-3-to-4-Years-Old.aspx http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/toddler/P...

johnyzee 16y ago
I agree and being the father of a five year old I experience every day how little idea I have about how he understands things. As an example he is currently struggling with the idea of things being relative, so while I watch the world cup and say that one of the teams playing are a good soccer team, he will respond that then the other team must not be good. For some reason he really needs this to be true for his world to make sense. There are just so many learned realities that we as adults assume but which kids have no idea about, to the extent that we have no freaking clue about how they see the world.
- po 16y ago
  Absolutely. Sometimes I think about what the difference between an 18 year old and a 24 year old's brain is. Or, perhaps the difference between a 30 year old and a 50 year old person. I think we have an intuitive understanding of it and it shows up in a lot of public policy debate. People talk about ageism and old people "not getting it" and older folks have a similar "kids these days" feeling. I wonder what part of that is simply due to differing world views caused by differing brain capabilities. Nobody seems to talk about that when we debate these things. I'm sure its being studied.

jemfinch 16y ago

The psychological capabilities of young children are remarkably consistent and well established in the literature. It's not unreasonable to make generalizations about them.