4 ms·

> Most kids shows seem like a low effort afterthought full of contrived vapid nonsense. Kids brain is not adult brain. You need a different kind of training ma

> Most kids shows seem like a low effort afterthought full of contrived vapid nonsense. Kids brain is not adult brain. You need a different kind of training material.

dclowd9901 3y ago
We’re not talking about the same thing here. Lots of kids shows don’t even try to make sense or have a cogent story. So not only are they insulting the intelligence of their audience, they’re also refusing to enrich their critical thinking skills at all. That’s the _other_ kind of kids show out there right now.
- hdhfjkrkrme 3y ago
  Are cartoon physics insulting kids intelligence? Tom coming back 1 second after being blown up with dynamite makes sense? Maybe these kinds of cartoons are bad according to you. There it research that kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising (fixation period, ...) because that builds a model of how the world works, not the easily predicted stuff.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > Are cartoon physics insulting kids intelligence? dclowd9901 already said the issue is when it's "just lazy storytelling". Pixar shows you can tell great stories with cartoon physics. You don't eat only sugar. You don't eat only carbs. You don't eat only protein. Your body needs a mix. Many people want their kids to have a healthy diet. Saying Nutella is a "sometimes food" is not the same as saying Nutella is "bad", or that it's a "never food." Tom & Jerry is a sometimes food. Other shows exercise a different range of critical skills. I was gobsmaked when I saw a clip from Mr. Rogers where Daniel Striped Tiger asks Lady Aberlin "What does assassination mean?", in a special episode created after the assassination of RFK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk And Mr. Rogers could tackle racism head-on, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk in an era when blacks were prohibited or physically attacked for trying to go to "white" pools. Bluey could take on these sorts of topics for kids, in an age appropriate way. Tom&Jerry could not. Nor could Blippi, so it's not just cartoon physics that's the issue. But Mr. Rogers couldn't pull off the classic "coyote paints a picture in a wall, Road Runner enters the picture and speeds off into the distance, coyote tries and crashes into the wall" gag, nor should it. I don't think it's a good idea for kids to only watch Mr. Rogers-type shows either. > kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising Strange then that kids' cartoons are often so formulaic. "The Animal Mechanicals are sent to a new floating island to resolve a problem. The team comes up with a plan, and each team member gets to use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end." "Something goes wrong. The Paw Patrol are called to help. Ryder comes up with a plan, the pups use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end. Except for Mayor Humdinger."
    - dclowd9901 3y ago
      Yep, exactly. And I should mention the show _does_ take some liberties with the plot vis a vis skimming over a lot of the setup of the stories. Try to imagine the amount of time the kids and adults would have to take to set up certain activities they do that we never see. I can scarcely imagine my daughters having the patience to go through with that much setup before actually getting to play. But it’s all in service of telling a fun, unique story, so it gets a pass.
pfranz 3y ago
That's true, but just like adults, what kid's brains "need" isn't always the same thing they're most stimulated by. I also think since adults are often around it's very very appreciated to not be obnoxious to adults. Taking Bluey as a specific example, it's really nice to model positive family relationships. Sesame Street's original goal was to "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them."
MarkMarine 3y ago
Sounds like someone hasn’t had to sit through blippi
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Honestly, look. Human brains are not designed to passively absorb audiovisual dreck that's on TV. We're humans designed to interact with the natural world, plants, animals, and especially one another, in tangible ways. Video edutainment is a futile proposition. Get your face out of the screen while you still can, and be present to your fellow man.
- hdhfjkrkrme 3y ago
  We're not designed to live in buildings either. Or to do math. So I'm not sure about this line of reasoning, because it suggests we should go back to hunter gathering.
- imp0cat 3y ago
  That is the point, no? That Bluey is not the average " audiovisual dreck ".
  - 93po 3y ago
    By the previous commenters opinion I assume it is. The point being to have people interact with the world instead of passively accepting high levels of stimulation for doing nothing. I believe it’s healthier for all humans of any age to engage with the input->output model of the world.
    - dclowd9901 3y ago
      Nope, it stands out among kids shows, which are typically a wasteland of formulaic stories that amount to nothing and require no introspective thinking. One thing I think that illustrates this is that my daughter will often have questions for me after watching Bluey. Like actual meaningful questions about life or how the world works. If she’s watching TOTS, she’s just sitting there mouth agape and maybe getting bored enough to just walk out of the room.
      - 93po 3y ago
        Again I think the premise here is that this sort of engagement with the world is better done, for example, as a conversation with an adult that can lead them to the same interesting questions and observations. I did this endlessly as a kid. I'd be sitting bored in a car and look at clouds and ask my parents how clouds worked. This wouldn't have happened if I was given a smart phone.

> Most kids shows seem like a low effort afterthought full of contrived vapid nonsense. Kids brain is not adult brain. You need a different kind of training material.

dclowd9901 3y ago

We’re not talking about the same thing here. Lots of kids shows don’t even try to make sense or have a cogent story. So not only are they insulting the intelligence of their audience, they’re also refusing to enrich their critical thinking skills at all. That’s the _other_ kind of kids show out there right now.

hdhfjkrkrme 3y ago
Are cartoon physics insulting kids intelligence? Tom coming back 1 second after being blown up with dynamite makes sense? Maybe these kinds of cartoons are bad according to you. There it research that kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising (fixation period, ...) because that builds a model of how the world works, not the easily predicted stuff.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > Are cartoon physics insulting kids intelligence? dclowd9901 already said the issue is when it's "just lazy storytelling". Pixar shows you can tell great stories with cartoon physics. You don't eat only sugar. You don't eat only carbs. You don't eat only protein. Your body needs a mix. Many people want their kids to have a healthy diet. Saying Nutella is a "sometimes food" is not the same as saying Nutella is "bad", or that it's a "never food." Tom & Jerry is a sometimes food. Other shows exercise a different range of critical skills. I was gobsmaked when I saw a clip from Mr. Rogers where Daniel Striped Tiger asks Lady Aberlin "What does assassination mean?", in a special episode created after the assassination of RFK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk And Mr. Rogers could tackle racism head-on, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk in an era when blacks were prohibited or physically attacked for trying to go to "white" pools. Bluey could take on these sorts of topics for kids, in an age appropriate way. Tom&Jerry could not. Nor could Blippi, so it's not just cartoon physics that's the issue. But Mr. Rogers couldn't pull off the classic "coyote paints a picture in a wall, Road Runner enters the picture and speeds off into the distance, coyote tries and crashes into the wall" gag, nor should it. I don't think it's a good idea for kids to only watch Mr. Rogers-type shows either. > kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising Strange then that kids' cartoons are often so formulaic. "The Animal Mechanicals are sent to a new floating island to resolve a problem. The team comes up with a plan, and each team member gets to use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end." "Something goes wrong. The Paw Patrol are called to help. Ryder comes up with a plan, the pups use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end. Except for Mayor Humdinger."
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    Yep, exactly. And I should mention the show _does_ take some liberties with the plot vis a vis skimming over a lot of the setup of the stories. Try to imagine the amount of time the kids and adults would have to take to set up certain activities they do that we never see. I can scarcely imagine my daughters having the patience to go through with that much setup before actually getting to play. But it’s all in service of telling a fun, unique story, so it gets a pass.

pfranz 3y ago

That's true, but just like adults, what kid's brains "need" isn't always the same thing they're most stimulated by. I also think since adults are often around it's very very appreciated to not be obnoxious to adults. Taking Bluey as a specific example, it's really nice to model positive family relationships. Sesame Street's original goal was to "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them."

MarkMarine 3y ago

Sounds like someone hasn’t had to sit through blippi

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Honestly, look. Human brains are not designed to passively absorb audiovisual dreck that's on TV. We're humans designed to interact with the natural world, plants, animals, and especially one another, in tangible ways. Video edutainment is a futile proposition. Get your face out of the screen while you still can, and be present to your fellow man.

hdhfjkrkrme 3y ago
We're not designed to live in buildings either. Or to do math. So I'm not sure about this line of reasoning, because it suggests we should go back to hunter gathering.
imp0cat 3y ago
That is the point, no? That Bluey is not the average " audiovisual dreck ".
- 93po 3y ago
  By the previous commenters opinion I assume it is. The point being to have people interact with the world instead of passively accepting high levels of stimulation for doing nothing. I believe it’s healthier for all humans of any age to engage with the input->output model of the world.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    Nope, it stands out among kids shows, which are typically a wasteland of formulaic stories that amount to nothing and require no introspective thinking. One thing I think that illustrates this is that my daughter will often have questions for me after watching Bluey. Like actual meaningful questions about life or how the world works. If she’s watching TOTS, she’s just sitting there mouth agape and maybe getting bored enough to just walk out of the room.
    - 93po 3y ago
      Again I think the premise here is that this sort of engagement with the world is better done, for example, as a conversation with an adult that can lead them to the same interesting questions and observations. I did this endlessly as a kid. I'd be sitting bored in a car and look at clouds and ask my parents how clouds worked. This wouldn't have happened if I was given a smart phone.