Why is "thinking of the children" even a thing?

[Saladfork]

During arguments regarding media and violence/sex therein, a popular argument from those in favour of censorship is that children will watch it and be somehow traumatized. The most popular counterargumenet to that point seems to be "Don't let your kids read/watch/play it then", but I have another; In what way does violent or pornographic media traumatize them in the first place?

Kids are generally able to adequetely seperate reality from fantasy by the age of 7. I won't argue that giving a 4-year-old something like A Serbian Film would probably be a bad idea. After that point, however, what exactly is the problem?

I have never once seen any kind of study confirming (or denying, for that matter) that subjects traditionally considered not suitable for kids do any kind of psycological harm to them.

I suppose it could be argued that kids take some of their views on the world from their media, and that blatently violent media could subconsiously push one to violent behaviour, but again, I've never seen anything confirming this myself. I can certainly tell you that kids need no help from their media to be violent if they want to, as I'm sure anyone who raised, or was, a kid in the times before television became widespread could attest to.

Anyway, my point that I kind of forgot for a minute there was that if I saw a 10-year-old playing Manhunt, I'd be more worried about his taste in gaming than that he might start disembowling homeless people.

 

[Jacco]

Because parents think no matter what they do, they are right. They don't agree with kids being involved in violence so no one can and they use the children as a weapon since it's something everyone can relate to.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Because they're not mature enough to deal with it, monkey see monkey do and all that. And yes kids are likely to act out what they see on TV. There's age ratings on the box's for a reason

 

[mechashiva77]

Because parents think no matter what they do, they are right. They don't agree with kids being involved in violence so no one can and they use the children as a weapon since it's something everyone can relate to.

What he said. Besides, I think parents should decide what their OWN children should do, not complain and cut everyone off. Now, as for when a child is supposed to look at certain things. I honestly can't come up with an objective answer, and just say it varies. I do however think that most people tend to overestimate how innocent children are.

 

[Fappy]

Because there's no such thing as "personal responsibility" in today's society. We all need to blame something else for our problems and mistakes. I definitely think there is certain media children should be kept far away from, but it's their parents' responsibility to make sure they don't get exposed.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Because kids are retards, and everyone likes a scapegoat. First it was rock music, now it's video games.

 

[Saladfork]

Because there's no such thing as "personal responsibility" in today's society. We all need to blame something else for our problems and mistakes. I definitely think there is certain media children should be kept far away from, but it's their parents' responsibility to make sure they don't get exposed.

Why should that certain media be kept from them, though? I've heard some people worried that they'll mess up their kid somehow, but nobody seems to be able to explain why.

Personally I think the more you keep ideas or actions away from kids, the more they'll want to get to it, with or without your knowledge. Take sex, for example. There are a lot of people who feel that exposing kids to sexual content of any kind will encourage them to have it too soon themselves. True? Maybe, but the reverse certainly doesn't seem to help much either [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc].

Another source saying basically the same thing. [http://www.examiner.com/article/teen-pregnancy-why-the-u-s-lags-behind-europe]

I do however think that most people tend to overestimate how innocent children are.

Exactly my point.

 

[Fappy]

-Snip-

Depending on their age and the content in question the child may not be able to fully comprehend the context of what's happening. Obviously this can be remedied by good parenting, but there are still certain things (mostly extreme violence) children shouldn't be exposed to at a young age. And when I mean young I mean around 7-years-old and younger. With parental supervision and guidance I'd think most things would be okay for an older kid assuming the kid can handle it. Certain content will scare the shit out of younger kids and you never want that. I saw Fargo when I was 9-years-old. It freaked me the fuck out.

This is just my opinion and how I intend to handle my own theoretical children. I honestly don't think anyone (especially the government) as a right to interfere in this regard.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Because some parents seem to think that just because they have children the whole world should bend to their will. Also apparently monitoring what media your children view is something that is too trivial for today's busy modern parent to do, so clearly the laws should be changed so these things aren't allowed to exist so they can have less things to worry about in their busy schedule.

 

[aba1]

I have always found that a issue with scare tactics is that they always exaggerate figures and facts to extreme proportions. While that may not seem like such a big deal to some, keep in mind these kids take these things as fact and the second they see one of them being proven false it invalidates everything else being said in turn. A persons word is only as good as his reputation.

Personally I have always found I listen better people better when they level with me instead of trying to toss there bullshit everywhere. I had this issues with teachers a lot of times because they generally seem to have some sort of superiority complex where they think they are better than all the students.

At the end of the day I really just think people need to take more responsibility for their actions it doesn't help that there is this mind set of admitting to being wrong means you should be shammed and you are considered stupid. Being wrong is fine but being unwilling to admit it only leads to issues.

And I am just going to toss this out there because it isn't said enough but you should never enter a argument unwilling to be proven wrong. If you aren't will to consider your self wrong you're just wasting everyone's time irregardless of whether you are wrong or not.

 

[Saladfork]

And I am just going to toss this out there because it isn't said enough but you should never enter a argument unwilling to be proven wrong. If you aren't will to consider your self wrong you're just wasting everyone's time irregardless of whether you are wrong or not.

I would be completely fine with being proven wrong. I'm a big fan of this one xkcd quote: You do not use science to prove you're right, you use science to become right. My problem with this situation is that there is no proof for or against, and in absence of evidence, I side with the null hypothesis (That being that any correlation between media exposure and developmental differences are due to chance).

Now, if anyone does have a study regarding the effects of violence or sex or whatever in media and children's psycological development, I'd be quite interested to read it. Hell, I'd conduct an experiment myself if I had the money, time and enough kids for a control group and a couple experimental groups.

 

[4173]

Because of The Simpsons.

 

[aba1]

And I am just going to toss this out there because it isn't said enough but you should never enter a argument unwilling to be proven wrong. If you aren't will to consider your self wrong you're just wasting everyone's time irregardless of whether you are wrong or not.

I would be completely fine with being proven wrong. I'm a big fan of this one xkcd quote: You do not use science to prove you're right, you use science to become right. My problem with this situation is that there is no proof for or against, and in absence of evidence, I side with the null hypothesis (That being that any correlation between media exposure and developmental differences are due to chance).

Now, if anyone does have a study regarding the effects of violence or sex or whatever in media and children's psycological development, I'd be quite interested to read it. Hell, I'd conduct an experiment myself if I had the money, time and enough kids for a control group and a couple experimental groups.

Some interesting points although I wasn't saying this is true exclusively just as a general rule of thumb. Personally I find when neither side can really be proven more than the other I just agree to disagree and I always felt it was fine to disagree that is part of what makes us individuals as long as neither side becomes resentful. In general though it is always good to remember pride is a deadly sin for a reason.

 

[Terramax]

Kids are generally able to adequetely seperate reality from fantasy by the age of 7.

I believe that whilst kids can differentiate between fantasy and reality, that's not the same as saying kids aren't inspired by, and don'ttry to live out a fantasy.

 

[Saladfork]

I have never once seen any kind of study confirming (or denying, for that matter) that subjects traditionally considered not suitable for kids do any kind of psycological harm to them.

Have you ever []ilooked[/i] for any?

Here's one http://academic.udayton.edu/RondaScantlin/CMM449_Fall2003/Comm449_Fall/3_Topic3/Media_Violence_March2003.pdf

And another: http://www.psych.utah.edu/2006_spring_3410_00/3905-assignment3articles/4-television_violence_I.pdf

Plus you've got the original Bobo Doll experiment done all the way back in the 60s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

Basically, yes, there's a shittonne of evidence. That all said, I did some research into the effect of video games on children (I'm a psychology student) and there are too many studies going both ways, and none seem to have a handle on all of the variables yet.

The first one there is quite interesting. Seems they were mainly focused on 6-9 year olds for media consumption age. As I said earlier in the OP, I can see why you'd want to limit exposure to such things before the kid is capable of seperating reality and fantasy. I meant for kids over the age of about 10-ish.

I should've been more specific, sorry.

In that regard:

we do not need
to be as concerned about adults? or even teenagers? exposure to
media violence as much as we do with childrens? exposure. Media
violence may have short-term effects on adults, but the real longterm
effects seem to occur only with children. This makes some
societal controls more palatable in a society that places a high
premium on the rights of adults to watch whatever they want.

Which I would hypothesize to be connected to the reality-fantasy development.

The second report was reporting on physiological responses rather than psycological ones. I'm not sure that the two could be connected very well. I may be wrong on that count, I admit, but I don't think it's very helpful in analysis of long-term psycological effects.

As for Bobo, I read about that experiment in a class in university. If I recall correctly, that experiment was conducted with very young children, which as I said before, were not the subject of my initial hypothesis.

Thank you for the reports, they were an interesting read.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

Snip

The Bobo Doll Experiment is a very good example, however I see you have already been presented as such. Such exposure to the media DOES result in changes in empathy and how one views the world, adults included. As children age, they are influenced less and less by parents, and more and more by their peers. What are their peers doing/playing? Tend to one violent games and/or indulging in violent media. At this time as well children are going through hormonal changes, their brains not quite fully developed, which can lead to drastic behaviour changes in perception and decision making.

To say a child can't be, or there is little chance they will be influenced by any form of violent acts, whether they be in front of the child, from parents, the television, or any form of media, is wrong. Children, all the way up to adulthood, mimic behaviour. It's how they learn and progress. Now one could say that a parent could allow the child or individual to view such behaviour and explain to the individual what the scene is and what's happening, but sadly that does not occur during most cases. Instead the children will proceed to mimic that behaviour or action for further learning, whether he or she consciously intends to.

I am one who would love to say that children are not influenced by video games and the media and it's all a big hoax, but it really isn't. I'm actually currently writing a paper on how roleplaying (this including both tabletop and consol gaming) can influence decision making, personality, and various areas of The Big 5 on people of various ages. Good news is so far, there have been little results that feature a role, acting in a role, or viewing a role produces long term personality change (although this might be veering off from the original topic at hand).

 

[thesilentman]

Because there's no such thing as "personal responsibility" in today's society. We all need to blame something else for our problems and mistakes. I definitely think there is certain media children should be kept far away from, but it's their parents' responsibility to make sure they don't get exposed.

Why should that certain media be kept from them, though? I've heard some people worried that they'll mess up their kid somehow, but nobody seems to be able to explain why.

Because of course children need to be prevented from the horrors of the world! [/sarcasm]

I think that another guy ([user]j-e-f-f-e-r-s[/user], I think) in another thread explained why kids should be protected to some extent from the media that is out there. I can't find his post, but it had something to do with "why kids are immature fucking assholes to the point of frustration" Kids can see the stuff all they want, but they won't understand it without the proper context. I'll come back with proper examples, as the ones I had in mind were Brave New World (the book) and Bioshock.

OT- "Thinking of the children" is a scheme to make us all into jerks when we grow up. I tell you, the amount of kids got away with shit they shouldn't have around me... >.>

 

[HardkorSB]

If the parents took their precious time to sit down with their kids and talk about all these deadly media (and many other things), we wouldn't have a problem.
Some people will of course respond: "I don't have the time, I've got to work and blah blah blah" to which I say "If you don't have time to raise children, don't have children". Giving them food, clothes and shelter =/= raising them.