| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2008 05:22:21 PM · #1 |
The journal Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's no "throw away". I found it interesting to note two articles presented in this month's issue:
Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States
Does Watching Sex on Televison Predict Teen Pregnancy? Findings From a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Because we are a creative site, I think we often celebrate a notion of Liberty. However, it makes for an interesting discussion as to whether liberty can or should be curtailed in the interest of society and our children? The discussion is especially interesting when the societal effects are insidious or cumulative only over time.
Often conservative/religious calls for stricter guidelines as to what is presented on TV or other modes of media are decried as old fashioned. But could it be possible science will eventually show them to be correct? Personally I monitor almost everything my children see on TV, but sometimes it's impossible. I am amazed at times at the lack of restraint shown by advertisers during daytime hours during events such as football. I record most things now so I can fast forward through the ads (probably a good idea anyway given the length of a typical football game), but can't I simply enjoy a game with my eight-year-old?
Mature discussion welcomed! |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:31:28 PM · #2 |
| Here's a VERY radical thought - don't watch television. I don't. Solves the whole problem of ads, violence, sex, really badly written comedy.... |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:31:45 PM · #3 |
I've always suspected that video games were one of the contributing factors to youth agression, not only because of content but also because they remove human interaction (unless one is playing with friends) and because they often replace physical activity.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:38:29 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Here's a VERY radical thought - don't watch television. I don't. Solves the whole problem of ads, violence, sex, really badly written comedy.... |
An apt solution to this Gordian Knot! The problem, as I see it, as a parent is trying to raise your kids in the way you want while still allowing them to be able to function in society. Our society, unfortunately, is steeped in media. Somehow, I think, you need to walk the line of allowing enough (of the right stuff) so your kids can interact with their peers, but not too much (of the wrong stuff) so as to inflict damage. It seems to be getting harder and harder to accomplish, and my oldest is only eight. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:45:14 PM · #5 |
| But really, how much would it kill a kid to NOT know who Brittany Spears is, or whether or not she wears underwear in public or some such? Whatever happened to playing outside, having friends over, spending the evening with the family. Why are TV stars the be-all/end-all? Or sports stars for that matter? Where did real people go? |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:53:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But really, how much would it kill a kid to NOT know who Brittany Spears is, or whether or not she wears underwear in public or some such? Whatever happened to playing outside, having friends over, spending the evening with the family. Why are TV stars the be-all/end-all? Or sports stars for that matter? Where did real people go? |
Yes, but what do kids talk about when they have friends over other than Pokemon or DS or some other common interest? These points of commonality are unfortunately what tie children of this age together. If you don't have some of those exposures, it is difficult to make inroads with your peers to get them to want to come over in the first place (even if you don't have the TV on at that point). |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:58:19 PM · #7 |
| I had a big long post typed out and erased it. Deb, I agree with you. My son doesn't watch anything on tv that's not on cartoon network. He knows nothing of movie stars or singers. But I agree abit with the doc, he doesn't connect with the kids who do know about them. He would rather go ride his bike then sit in the house and watch tv anyway. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:58:20 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But really, how much would it kill a kid to NOT know who Brittany Spears is, or whether or not she wears underwear in public or some such? Whatever happened to playing outside, having friends over, spending the evening with the family. Why are TV stars the be-all/end-all? Or sports stars for that matter? Where did real people go? |
Being the one who doesn't watch tv or doesn't know about the latest 'thing' can be very damaging to a child, who will often be left out of conversation and play which also tend to revolve around the latest thing. no, completly cutting a child off from TV and Games could actually do a lot of damage to their ability to function through childhood... imo
ETA... that's not to say that they should spend all their time in these forms of 'entertainment' either...
Message edited by author 2008-11-03 17:59:32. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:21:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Being the one who doesn't watch tv or doesn't know about the latest 'thing' can be very damaging to a child, who will often be left out of conversation and play which also tend to revolve around the latest thing. no, completly cutting a child off from TV and Games could actually do a lot of damage to their ability to function through childhood... imo
ETA... that's not to say that they should spend all their time in these forms of 'entertainment' either... |
This is exactly the dilemma that parents face, and finding that balance is harder than any Cirque du Soleil act. I'm glad that my kids are into their 20's now. The "electronic age" existed then, sure, but wasn't yet so all-pervasive as today. Then again, we didn't allow it to be, and living on a street with 14 other kids their age certainly helped :) |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:34:22 PM · #10 |
| Growing up my parents refused to get cable TV. We only had the networks. Eventually, when I was in early high school, they relented and we got cable. I still remember the MTV music awards when Prince came out in yellow pants with the butt cheeks cut out. My dad growled, "that's it!" and the next day cable was gone again. I laugh at it now, but it's an interesting anecdote made even more interesting that a year or two ago my mother told me to have cable when my kids were in junior high because otherwise kids wouldn't want to come over. They felt they had some of that struggle and that as children we always wanted to spend the night elsewhere instead of at home. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:35:37 PM · #11 |
I think to offset the ubiquitous violent and insensitive images and messages of tv and movies, it's the parents attitudes towards their children and others and towards violence in general that can and need to be even stronger. And they need to be imparted early on in their young lives. Surely, if children are allowed to watch tv or play violent video games to the exclusion of being really loved and given considerable attention to by their parents, then they can adopt those negative characteristics from the void left by the lack of love and present role models. And if the parents also display violent tendencies and attitudes the violence on tv and games is just being reinforced.
The key word in the study of violent video games is: "habitual." Do something excessively to the exclusion of other parts of life and anything can become ingrained. It's all about balance. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:46:38 PM · #12 |
Knowledge is learned; it is not innate. From that point of view, I don't think it is a stretch to say that every activity you participate in, can have some effect on the way you think, act and grow. So yes I think these things can have some effect on the way we think.
All studies, in my opinion, are not completely accurate due to the fact they rarely consider the fact that people are not all the same. "Marijuana is a gateway drug because many of the people who have tried it, go on to try harder drugs". Is it Marijuana that is the cause? No. It's the personality of the people who are using the drug. If you are willing to try Marijuana, you are more likely to try another drug. Within the same argument, someone who is not willing to try Marijuana, will certainly not be willing to try a harder drug.
So, back to the two articles at hand. Is it video games that make people aggressive? Is it media that makes people more interested in sex? Yes to some extent. But I think these studies say more about the people engaging in these activities than the activities themselves. Someone who is interested in the topic of sex is more likely to watch a show such as "Sex in the City". Someone who enjoys the rush of a violent video game might get the same feelings when they are aggressive in real life. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:55:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jeger:
So, back to the two articles at hand. Is it video games that make people aggressive? Is it media that makes people more interested in sex? Yes to some extent. But I think these studies say more about the people engaging in these activities than the activities themselves. Someone who is interested in the topic of sex is more likely to watch a show such as "Sex in the City". Someone who enjoys the rush of a violent video game might get the same feelings when they are aggressive in real life. |
Good points. And both studies cannot show a "cause and effect" but rather show an association. However, I doubt one would be able to do the needed study where you expose one group to violent video games and the other to something else and evaluate the outcome. That would never fly with an Institutional Review Board. So we are left with studies like this. But the question remains, if this is the best information we have, are society and our children important enough to curtail our liberties in case there really is a cause and effect?
It's all nice to talk about the theoreticals, but I'd suspect many on this site would cry foul if we were talking about actually taking some stuff off the air or not allowing certain video games to be sold.
Message edited by author 2008-11-03 18:55:56. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 07:04:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's all nice to talk about the theoreticals, but I'd suspect many on this site would cry foul if we were talking about actually taking some stuff off the air or not allowing certain video games to be sold. |
There probably is a balance. Are we at the right balance right now? I definitely don't think so. I find it incredibly silly that nudity and sex are very taboo subjects but violence is mainstream in our media. History has shown a tendency for things to happen in cycles, so while these topics were very reserved in the past, but not so much now, I wouldn't be surprised if things swung back to being more reserved somewhere in the moderate future.
It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their children the best they can. In the end, people have to make their own decisions based on what they have learned. Most topics are safe in moderation. Obsessions are often the path to trouble.
Thanks for the links. Interesting topics. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:17:25 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still remember the MTV music awards when Prince came out in yellow pants with the butt cheeks cut out. |
Kinda explains
 |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:48:50 AM · #16 |
I think it is a sad commentary that people would have a TV because it makes it their home inviting to other children.
I'm sorry, but I would rather my son not be "popular" than to expose him to some of the things I see coming through that box.
Old fashioned? Perhaps, but so be it.
My son watches very, very little TV. He watches Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc at my mom's house, and videos at home. We monitor everything very carefully as he tends to be frightened easily (as was his mother. correction -- as IS his mother).
And, for what it is worth, we do not have a TV. We haven't had one in almost 12 years. (Interesting note -- As Trav has gotten older, it has been rather interesting watching his "phases." He probably likes programs a little longer than his same age counterparts, but for the most part, without influence from his peers, he has made the "transition" from pre-school shows to shows more interesting to his age group.)
As far as friends coming over, other kids seem to love coming here. They may think it a bit odd that we don't have a TV at first, but they don't make a big deal out of it, and they seem to enjoy PLAYING with eachother.
I would NEVER tell anyone to give up their TV, but if you've never turned it off for a week, I would encourage you to at least try it.
And, a purely anecdotal note -- my son is a very typical 6 yo. He likes to rough-house, wrestle, horseplay, etc. When he has watched more TV than he typically does, or if he watches a shoot 'em up kinda show, it elevates until he is downright "rough."
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:48:52 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good points. And both studies cannot show a "cause and effect" but rather show an association. However, I doubt one would be able to do the needed study where you expose one group to violent video games and the other to something else and evaluate the outcome. That would never fly with an Institutional Review Board. So we are left with studies like this. But the question remains, if this is the best information we have, are society and our children important enough to curtail our liberties in case there really is a cause and effect? |
What if the cause is curtailed liberties? Deb mentioned Britney Spears. Didn't she get famous because of that music video where she was in a catholic school uniform, a symbol of conservativism/oppressed liberty? Another example is Elvis. His hip shaking moves were a big deal only because the conservative adults made it a big deal. What we have now is just an extention of that. It's called rebellion, catch it! :)
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 00:50:27. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:15:00 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good points. And both studies cannot show a "cause and effect" but rather show an association. However, I doubt one would be able to do the needed study where you expose one group to violent video games and the other to something else and evaluate the outcome. That would never fly with an Institutional Review Board. So we are left with studies like this. But the question remains, if this is the best information we have, are society and our children important enough to curtail our liberties in case there really is a cause and effect? |
What if the cause is curtailed liberties? Deb mentioned Britney Spears. Didn't she get famous because of that music video where she was in a catholic school uniform, a symbol of conservativism/oppressed liberty? Another example is Elvis. His hip shaking moves were a big deal only because the conservative adults made it a big deal. What we have now is just an extention of that. It's called rebellion, catch it! :) |
I disagree. They were both a big deal for pushing boundaries. Two hundred years from now, when we may appear prude and victorian in hindsight, someone will still be pushing the new boundaries to get noticed. The question is what toll this exacts on society when we pay attention to them? |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:17:09 AM · #19 |
I applaud you Karmat, although I'll warn you I'm only two years down the road from you and even that may be a different game. Do your best of course, but you may look back in only four or five years and view your post as a voice from a different era.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 01:17:27. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:29:44 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I had a big long post typed out and erased it. Deb, I agree with you. My son doesn't watch anything on tv that's not on cartoon network. He knows nothing of movie stars or singers. But I agree abit with the doc, he doesn't connect with the kids who do know about them. He would rather go ride his bike then sit in the house and watch tv anyway. |
Interesting point. I actually consider the cartoon network rather violent, but I get your point and agree. Plus, our kids are at a different age, mine are 4 and 2. I particularly hate the commercials. Constantly telling them to spend, spend, spend.
We rent DVDs of TV shows via Netflix or stick with PBSKids. I don't like TV, but I sure love to watch it! So, I can not in good conscience preach what I don't practice. So we control it. Furthermore, I've come to appreciate some of the younger shows, and their potential benefit. It just needs to be done without the commercials, that's where DVDs shine, just skip that damn Barbi previews!
We do not own a video game unit and will not buy one, ever! I grew up without one, but my friends had them. I played them when I visited my friends. That was sufficient for me.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:39:14 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I applaud you Karmat, although I'll warn you I'm only two years down the road from you and even that may be a different game. Do your best of course, but you may look back in only four or five years and view your post as a voice from a different era. |
I would have to agree with Karmat. I am two years down the road for you Doc, and my kids rarely watch any TV, (about 1 hour per week). Sure their friends talk about Britany Spears, High School Musical, Hannah Montana etc., but my kids have suffered no side effects from not watching any of those shows. We do own a TV, but they have shown no interest in wanting to even watch the shows. However, I don't have teens yet, I think that is a completely different story.
We did not have cable either as a kid. I remember around the age of 13, I loved to spend the night over at my friends house that had HBO and Cinemax.....it was my sex education. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:56:13 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's all nice to talk about the theoreticals, but I'd suspect many on this site would cry foul if we were talking about actually taking some stuff off the air or not allowing certain video games to be sold. |
Very true. I do not want liberties curtailed. We can not, and should not, take away choice as generalization. However, as parents, it's our choice, and obligation, to inspire our children to choose the correct paths of morality, behavior, and general decency. That inspiration begins with the choices we make for them as toddlers, preschoolers, and young children, and, in part, specifically begins with television, videos, and video games. If we choose correctly, they will be more likely to make the correct decisions as they get older. Violence and sex are just a part of it.
I want to see parents educated. I want to see parents say no more often than yes to Disney and that smoking hot Ariel. Why do my daughters need, and ultimately want, to look like her?! I want to see parents say no to the violent and sex laden pre-teen shows and cartoons. How about no to The Brats? How about no to the 7 year old hip hugging jeans and belly shirts? If their is less demand, it will self correct.
Our children will ultimately be exposed to all of this crap, we need to set them up with the tools to process, and digest it, in the best way possible. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:48:37 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good points. And both studies cannot show a "cause and effect" but rather show an association. However, I doubt one would be able to do the needed study where you expose one group to violent video games and the other to something else and evaluate the outcome. That would never fly with an Institutional Review Board. So we are left with studies like this. But the question remains, if this is the best information we have, are society and our children important enough to curtail our liberties in case there really is a cause and effect? |
What if the cause is curtailed liberties? Deb mentioned Britney Spears. Didn't she get famous because of that music video where she was in a catholic school uniform, a symbol of conservativism/oppressed liberty? Another example is Elvis. His hip shaking moves were a big deal only because the conservative adults made it a big deal. What we have now is just an extention of that. It's called rebellion, catch it! :) |
I disagree. They were both a big deal for pushing boundaries. Two hundred years from now, when we may appear prude and victorian in hindsight, someone will still be pushing the new boundaries to get noticed. The question is what toll this exacts on society when we pay attention to them? |
Less than the toll of curtailing more liberties? It sounds like you want to put the genie back in the bottle. However, lets say you're right and having too much freedom is a bad thing and needs to be curtailed for the sake of society. How do you suppose that happen? |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:14:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Less than the toll of curtailing more liberties? It sounds like you want to put the genie back in the bottle. However, lets say you're right and having too much freedom is a bad thing and needs to be curtailed for the sake of society. How do you suppose that happen? |
I think what needs to be done (as best as possible) is to have firm boundaries. Look at it this way. There will always be boundary pushers. That's human nature and will never cease. The controllable factor is how strong the boundary pushes back. If it's soft, we may push the boundary out significantly even in a few years. If it's firm, it may take two or three generations before the boundary is moved. I think it's possible we have been far too soft and have allowed the boundaries to be moved too far. I agree with you in some respect that we can't "put the genie back in the bottle", but it doesn't mean we can't draw the line where we currently are.
Basically I'm just asking for a little breathing room to raise my kids. At times it seems nearly impossible to keep one's head above water. Let's recall I'm talking about something as simple as a football game. Aren't sports supposed to be family oriented? Don't we enjoy taking our kids to the ball game, etc? Can I watch football at 2:00 in the afternoon with my eight-year old without seeing advertisements of carnage for the next video game (watch some youtube ads for True Crime: New York City) or sexually charged beer commercials. I'm not talking about 10:00 at night. I'm talking about the middle of the day on the weekend during a sporting event. I'm not asking for much.
I really don't let my kids watch much TV and they don't really want to. Caden likes Spongebob, Pokemon, and Mr. Men which are all pretty harmless. Sometimes we'll watch nature shows in the evening or Mythbusters, but not commonly. But the lack of restraint by advertisers during sports is hard to bear. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:18:15 PM · #25 |
no TV and no kids. Maybe it is related after all.
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?â
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 12:21:54. |
|
