4 ms·

This is only true if the young ones in question are in a psychologically safe and emotionally supportive environment. I read things as a young child, without h

This is only true if the young ones in question are in a psychologically safe and emotionally supportive environment. I read things as a young child, without having the support to talk and parse them out, and additionally on top of the chaotic environment I was already in, where reading things like Animal Farm, or, specifically in my case, being introduced to the concept of destructive extinction events in books, movies, and magazines caused much trauma. I had a year where I didn't sleep well, until I could finally convince myself that aliens weren't going to get me in the shower, and that a giant meteor wasn't going to collide with earth any time soon (yet, at least).

renewiltord 4y ago
I was 11 when I read All Quiet on the Western Front and maybe 13 when I read Innocent Erendira. I don’t remember talking to anyone about these, though I did feel terrible for a few days after. Honestly, no lasting effects. This is probably the same as the fact that 70% of soldiers experiencing combat stress do not get PTSD and 30% experiencing severe combat stress don’t either. This means human variability is significant. So it’s a question of whether you want to roll the dice. I think I’ll want to permit the autonomy for my children but it’s entirely possible they’ll be in the susceptible set and be damaged.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence that there is a susceptible set? Books especially fiction come with two fundamental safety features. Firstly the book never subjects itself upon its reader. The reader is always in absolute control. Secondly the fundamental unreality of the setting allows one to dismiss it. I recall observing with morbid curiosity a video of someone losing their life to a terrorist many years ago thinking it would be no different than a gory movie. I was very very wrong. It isn't the realism of the simulation that matters its the inability to dismiss what one knows is in fact real.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    I have no evidence that there is a susceptible set. That's a "maybe you're right" statement.
r00fus 4y ago
I remember clearly as a kid scrubbing my head furiously for weeks after a local spelunking adventure where the guide jokingly told me that, after a stalactite dripped on me repeatedly, that a stalagmite would grow from my head. As a kid with a lot of anxieties (nuclear holocaust, overpopulation, etc) I really didn't need to be growing stalagmites from my head. Up to about seven years old, kids take things very literally. Understanding metaphorical speech comes only after that period, and not everyone fully understands even as an adult.

renewiltord 4y ago

I was 11 when I read All Quiet on the Western Front and maybe 13 when I read Innocent Erendira. I don’t remember talking to anyone about these, though I did feel terrible for a few days after. Honestly, no lasting effects. This is probably the same as the fact that 70% of soldiers experiencing combat stress do not get PTSD and 30% experiencing severe combat stress don’t either. This means human variability is significant. So it’s a question of whether you want to roll the dice. I think I’ll want to permit the autonomy for my children but it’s entirely possible they’ll be in the susceptible set and be damaged.

michaelmrose 4y ago
Do you have any evidence that there is a susceptible set? Books especially fiction come with two fundamental safety features. Firstly the book never subjects itself upon its reader. The reader is always in absolute control. Secondly the fundamental unreality of the setting allows one to dismiss it. I recall observing with morbid curiosity a video of someone losing their life to a terrorist many years ago thinking it would be no different than a gory movie. I was very very wrong. It isn't the realism of the simulation that matters its the inability to dismiss what one knows is in fact real.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I have no evidence that there is a susceptible set. That's a "maybe you're right" statement.

r00fus 4y ago

I remember clearly as a kid scrubbing my head furiously for weeks after a local spelunking adventure where the guide jokingly told me that, after a stalactite dripped on me repeatedly, that a stalagmite would grow from my head. As a kid with a lot of anxieties (nuclear holocaust, overpopulation, etc) I really didn't need to be growing stalagmites from my head. Up to about seven years old, kids take things very literally. Understanding metaphorical speech comes only after that period, and not everyone fully understands even as an adult.