Comment by memco
6 years ago
> I often think of this as "it's hard to tell people the solution to a problem they don't have", or don't know they have.
This may be way off in another field, but this is actually frustrating to me as a father in another way: when we watch shows or read books with our child so many of the stories are so far detached from reality as to make me ask, "Why are we asking kids to care about this?" I have particular ire for Disney's penchant to make kids think they need to be groomed for life in royal society when they have effectively a 0% chance of ever needing to learn those life skills in that context. I much more appreciate shows that explore how people need to learn to interact with their peers at home, in public, at school etc. I know it's tempting to also want to kind of detach the concept from actual people with animals and such, but my daughter is not an elephant or a car, she doesn't possess a magical amulet or the ability to fly or to submerge the whole state in sub-zero arctic winter. I know it's fun to dream and imagine, but I wonder sometimes if we're communicating: "the world around is impossibly complex and you need superhuman ability to solve it. You don't have those and so you're ill-equipped to do anything about it." Some days, that may be true, but I appreciate stories that emphasize we have a reasonable degree of power within our own human faculties and learning to leverage and use those faculties is far more effective than showing kids flashy superpowers or magical worlds they won't have or see. All this, from a guy who spent numerous of his childhood days imagining himself as Mega Man absorbing everyone else's superpowers, engrossed in Star Wars and TMNT. Shrug
I disagree. I think stories like this are important. They teach you to take a hypothetical scenario seriously. It teaches people to ask "what if X were true?" and to seriously consider the ramifications. This is a springboard into abstract thinking. Without people taking the hypothetical seriously they will want to deal with concrete things and will have trouble with abstract reasoning.
Imagine you were trying to have a discussion about racism with someone. You would tell them "How would you feel if one day you woke up black and people were biased against you due to your skin color?" They would tell you that it's the dumbest thing they've ever heard. Who have you ever known that woke up with a different skin color?[0] For someone to take an argument like this seriously they have to be willing to engage in a hypothetical scenario. Waking up with a different skin color is as fantastical as the stories you're talking about. This means that they won't engage with your hypothetical scenario.
[0] This is an argument made by James Flynn in his amazing TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI
I just dont think disney or superhero story do anything for understanding of racism or history or human relationships.
I mean, they are fun, but seriously.
Nothing wrong with that, I don't think there's a fixed list of "Learnable things" attached to any piece of content. It's mostly about the interpretation.
>You would tell them "How would you feel if one day you woke up black and people were biased against you due to your skin color?"
They are not biased against you because of your skin color. Skin color is just a proxy for higher violent crime rate and lower IQ.
So if a kid doesn't watch enough superhero/disney/scifi movies they won't understand racism...?
I agree that stoking kids' (and adults') imagination is useful and has benefits. But it sounds like you're claiming they literally won't be able to conceptualize anything outside of reality without them.
Why do you take this so literally? If you don't regularly run does that mean you're incapable of running? No, it doesn't. It means that you're not as good at running as you could be if you practiced more. The same applies to this.
If a kid is willing to take hypothetical scenarios seriously in a story I'd be willing to bet money they're more willing to take other hypotheticals seriously too. Moral reasoning tends to require hypothetical scenarios. If the other party isn't willing to engage in them then you can't make an argument based on them.
I'm simply saying that these stories help you take what if scenarios more seriously.
> So if a kid doesn't watch enough superhero/disney/scifi movies they won't understand racism...?
There is quite a massive distance between "You can take some lessons about racism from this content" and "If you do not consume this particular content you will not understand racism."
To add to your complaints, so many narratives designed for kids have such a clear delineation between the good side and the bad side. I'm not sure it's great for kids to be so steeped in the belief that the good and the bad are always and immediately obvious.
Another qualm I have, similar to yours, is the number of kids' shows that focus on "problem-solving" but then have the solution be some sort of magic item they very recently acquired, instead of needing to choose a solution from among several non-obvious solutions. Naturally, it's hard for very young children to follow anything very complicated, but it seems like at the very least, they could not opt for magic when it's entirely unnecessary (if they're trying to teach problem-solving).
I think I saw an essay linked on HN once about how many popular kids' shows have fascist worldview (examples were Thomas the Tank Engine and Paw Patrol) Now before you roll your eyes, these shows have nothing to do with murdering the "wrong kind" of people or destroying democracy, but it had a point: there is a fixed world order, the moral of the story is that of you disobey authority or move out of your role, bad things will happen.
Kids also lap this up. They are be in a phase where they need a sense or order in a chaotic world. It's a developmental phase. At some point when they grow up some great books, movies or games will hopefully provide disruption.
> I think I saw an essay linked on HN once about how many popular kids' shows have fascist worldview (examples were Thomas the Tank Engine and Paw Patrol)
Neither of those have even vaguely fascist worldviews. Particularly, non features the militarism or ultranationalism or xenophobia associated with fascism.
TTE arguably is problematic in other ways stemming from the fact that the bulk of the major characters are, in fact, items of property—technically state property though in the presentation of the narrative of the show they are virtually indistinguishable from personal chattels of the Fat Controller (Sir Topham Hatt in the US versions) or the Thin Controller (Mr. Percival in the US), including a number of them being threatened with imminent destruction for not being “really useful”.
> there is a fixed world order, the moral of the story is that of you disobey authority or move out of your role, bad things will happen.
That's not at all particular to fascism, it's the dominant rule of most historical societies and of most morality stories directed at children, including most fairy tales which long predate the development of fascism.
It's also not really a fair criticism of Paw Patrol, though it certainly is of at least much of TTE.
PBS Kids and Mister Rogers are wonderful educational TV. Almost everything else in the "20 minute cartoon industry" is garbage.
I really enjoy the australian cartoon Bluey, and think it generally does a good job demoing "practical" childhood skills. And parenting skills, for that matter.
> I have particular ire for Disney's penchant to make kids think they need to be groomed for life in royal society
Er, none of Disney’s films—well, at least not the princess ones, there might be something I'm unaware of elsewhere in the body of Disney-branded (and even more likely in the broader Disney-owned) catalog—has anything to do with grooming children for life in royal society. They are largely adaptations of fairy tales that use stories of royals specifically because they are interestingly exotic to communicate lessons of quotidian life aimed directly at children of more common means (often the adaptation changes the intended message to something modern and empowering from the original message which is often something like “don’t stray from the course society has set for you on pain of death”.)
Similarly, almost all the YA novels involve a transformation from ordinary mortal, perhaps even social outcast, to someone who has superpowers and/or is the special chosen one (and the story is the journey to overcome challenges and believe in yourself). They go way past "everyone is special" into "you're a failure if you don't change the world".
Here I am, over 50 and I'm still waiting for my superpowers to kick in...unless it's the power of mostly being adequate, and occasionally useful and creative.
I thinks there’s three main reasons for this:
1) It’s boilerplate hero’s journey and that shit works. It’s a tale as old as tales.
2) Looking for agency and power over your life is a theme adolescents connect with easily.
3) Harry Potter was a bonanza. That explains the recent spate of copycats, but the actual format way predates it. I don’t know about you, but I grew up buying Spider Man comics from the rack at the bodega. It’s the same thing.
It also certainly isn’t limited to YA media, and is probably more pernicious when it’s aimed at adults who should theoretically know better. The Matrix is a prime example, but there are plenty more where that came from.
Well, superpowers are quite boring if everyone around has them as well. For example, Harry Potters wand is not that impressive compared to a smartphone.
I really enjoyed watching episodes of The Busy World of Richard Scarry with my small children. The characters are all animals, but the kids in the show solve most of their own problems and defer to adults for appropriately serious matters. They still do whimsical things like going to outer space or back in time in one of Mr. Fix-it's contraptions, but the solutions to their problems are not magical. I found any programming I selected had to have some amount of whimsy in order to retain my kid's focus. The Magic Schoolbus was another good one. Both of these shows seem to have modern sequels now, but they don't appear to be as charming as the originals.
Have you found any good counterexamples? We let our three-year-old watch Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood and I love it because it is exactly this: short (~10 minute) stories about situations and conflicts that a young child will encounter in everyday life. I’d be really interested to hear of other good shows & books like this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Daniel_Tiger%27s_Nei...
I don't know how "real life" it is, but Sarah and Duck [1] is about the best young kids show we've come across. It used to be on Netflix, but they took it off. We've bought all 9? seasons on Amazon by now though. It's a great show of just of just completely mundane things with a bit of imagination tossed in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_%26_Duck
Agreed, and as a parent I can watch it with my kids over and over and I still enjoy it. Not quite as good, but close: Puffin Rock.
Pingu is also very good. If you haven't seen it, it's a Claymation penguin and his family. He's not a goody goody--on the one hand is just funny, but on the other hand it gets to explore his kid-life and kid-choices. TH other fun thing is, they all speak a language made up by the Italian opera singer that voices them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingu
https://www.amazon.com/Pingu/dp/B01J4L837M
I really, really prefer the original Mr. Rogers to Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. The latter feels like it abandoned the pacing that made Mr Rogers so calming and effective.
It is for a bit older kids, but comics from Raina Telgemeier are real life like. Some are autobiographical.
Stick with PBS Kids and Sesame Street and Mister Rogers reruns.
If I remember correctly, babies learn to distinguish vowels from consonants from near birth when adults speak to them in that annoying high pitched "coochy coochy coo" dialect. After 6-12 months of life this starts to hold them back as they need to transition to hearing normal sounds and seeing the people mouthing them. The puppets with hinge-flap mouths, exaggerated and insanely high pitched accents in Sesame Street are ridiculous. I would strongly discourage letting your little ones watch this show.
Also Sesame Street is very New York. The rest of the world doesn't live like this. I recommend local kids TV shows with real humons performing. Some short cartoons are fun, many of them are terrible, but the sum total of TV is dose dependent. Turning it off straight after their favorite show might result in a little argument but you'll be pleasantly surprised when 5 minutes later you catch them doing something (anything) else. Usually something creative, social, and developing fine motor skills, if not simply running around outside. And subsequently you'll find them turning it off themselves.
5 replies →
I think mythology is an important metaphorical tool, but I'm inclined to agree with you. Disney movies are engineered to sell, usually by indulging kids' fantasies. One of the big numbers in The Little Mermaid is literally, "I have so many toys, and now I'm in love." It's kid-crack. Kids like candy.
I like Mulan though, and The Lion King. I think those are some very cool movies with very good life lessons.
Mulan is great! The Lion King though, The evil dark skinned lion and his dark skinned underlings with immigrant accents take over and the world goes to shit. Only the light colored royal lineage can be in charge if you want a nice world.
Ehh, that reads like shoehorning in a political agenda to me. The hyenas aren't dangerous because they're foreign, they're foreign because they're dangerous. Their actions make them a threat - they're sneaky, mean and evil. That's why the lions don't accept them.
Timone is also foreign.
But like, if you want a parable they already gave you one: they aren't immigrants, they're Nazis.
6 replies →
Daniel Tiger is pretty good about working with others and focusing on our emotional maturity.
You might like My Little Pony. It is with animals, but it is a lot about how relationships really work.
I am with you on superheroes. They do nice power fantasy, but lack actual tension, because main hero is unrealistically over the top strong. Consequently, the mechanics of "how the world works" are also all wrong.
+1 on My Little Pony. Equestria Girls is great - characters can be irrational and selfish and mean, and friends have serious arguments and fallings-out, but their commitment to their mutual friendships works out in the end
> Disney's penchant to make kids think they need to be groomed for life in royal society
That's not about teaching your kids to live in royal society - that's grooming your children to know they are not part of it.
Yeah, I agree. It seems to support the idea that you’re not good enough, pretty enough, etc. And then you go to Disneyland pay them to make you feel special after all the issues of self-worth they fueled with their shows.