Playing Video Games "Definitely" Doesn't Harm Children

  • Thread starter Thread starter Foxi4
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 7,628
  • Replies Replies 71
  • Likes Likes 11
Of course


This what people sometimes don't understand. I dont believe video games cause mental or violent out burst in the behavior of a kid as much because its still something they imitate, sheeeyt i used to imitate many game characters when i was younger but its not like i just finish watching two Nurses strip in front of me and know i wanna go around touching women.
If the parent wants to buy there child a game that's over rated but are well aware what there child is mentally capable of handling then sure but just dont blame video games for all of the problems.

I agree that if the parents believe the child can handle it then the rules can be bent, but that's responsible behavior on the part of the parents, thinking about whether or not the child will understand. So someone who's 15 but mature about it shouldn't have an issue playing 18 rated gamed. Giving said 18 rated games to 9 year olds because they throw a tantrum is another matter.

Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these days.
 
I agree that if the parents believe the child can handle it then the rules can be bent, but that's responsible behavior on the part of the parents, thinking about whether or not the child will understand. So someone who's 15 but mature about it shouldn't have an issue playing 18 rated gamed. Giving said 18 rated games to 9 year olds because they throw a tantrum is another matter.

Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these days.

Yeah i can understand if your like 8-9 trying to play call of duty with all these grown people around then no that is not a good site to be at.

"Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these day"
Wow thats pretty much restricts you to nothing at all because you can do one thing legally while still being on the low and doing the other.
 
When kids make a fuss a lot of parents I see around my area, it's not necessarily world-wide, just what I've observed, they can only react in two ways. They either get angry and slap the kid and cause a scene, or capitulate to shut the kid up and the kid ends up playing some gorey game they shouldn't have access to. and then everyone wonders why these kids end up with no job, no prospects, more kids that GCSE's. It's not the fault of the game, it's a product, it's to be used responsibly. It's the fault of the parents who don't give a crap.

As for the store staff, I agree that they need to be more responsible, but most of them in this area at least get paid minimum wage and get treated like crap by everyone when they sell out of the latest killer app. They become so jaded by it all that they stop giving a shit, for the most part. I do know a couple of exceptions that have even ID'd me before even though they all know I'm old enough it's still procedure, etc. But the majority of the staff are in the same place as the parents. Life isn't what they wanted it to be and they can't cope so they just give up. It's the biggest problem in modern western society, IMHO. People hold themselves up against celebrities and multi-millionaire tramps famous for being tramps (Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, etc) and when life doesn't bring them any of it they don't have the spirit to just get on with it. Everyone expects the easy life and nobody actually gets it. Whereas I've been through hell and back on my journey so far, pretty much any minor improvement to my life can be a game-changer to me.
Your observation is very apt, I studied about it during my psychology course and it has to do with the very simple mechanism of rewards and punishments, although it may not seem to do so on first glance.

What happens mentally is that the child is subconciously checking its footing with the parent to see how far it can go in negotiations. The parents are afraid of the social stigma of "causing a racket in a store" and for the sake of keeping up appearances, they bend to the child's wishes wheras from the start, the answer should just be "No." and if the fuss continues, they should finish their shopping quickly and leave the store.

Bending to the crocodile tears teaches the child that goals can be quickly achieved by means of aggression, be it mental such as yelling or physical like tugging at the sleeve etc. This is a "reward" which instills aggressive behavior and the more often it occurs the more frequent and elaborate will be the scenes as time goes by. It looks innocent enough, but it's actually a very effective way to teach a child that by being aggressive, it can obtain immediate real life benefits.

The parent should make it clear that no negotiations are about to take place and that his/her decision is final - instead, they engage in banter with the child which informs the child that it has equal footing, which it shouldn't have since the parent is supposed to be a figure of authority.

Of course this is a complex subject and I'm only touching the tip of the ice berg, not to mention that I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but long story short, by allowing this to happen, you're "tickling the kid's Pavlov" so to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taleweaver
crappy parents make crappy children. i got my son when he was 4 and he was a total mess, with a tantrum here and a tantrum there… but i never resorted to placate him by giving into his demands or distracting him with anything - i simply gave him a time-out. wether at a firend's house, at the park, the grocery store, didn't matter where at the first sign of a tantrum i put him facing a wall with nothing to do till he calmed down. i didn't care who was watching, who gave me dirty looks, they would all later thank me for not bringing another turd teenager into the world.

… he is now quite delightful and outgoing.

please parents, don't create asshole children.
 
crappy parents make crappy children. i got my son when he was 4 and he was a total mess, with a tantrum here and a tantrum there… but i never resorted to placate him by giving into his demands or distracting him with anything - i simply gave him a time-out. wether at a firend's house, at the park, the grocery store, didn't matter where at the first sign of a tantrum i put him facing a wall with nothing to do till he calmed down. i didn't care who was watching, who gave me dirty looks, they would all later thank me for not bringing another turd teenager into the world.

… he is now quite delightful and outgoing.

please parents, don't create asshole children.

...and as cruel as it looks to the outside viewer, this is precisely what a parent should do. Now, I'm not entirely jolly about the whole "facing the wall" situation in public places, you could subscribe that to slight public humiliation, but a "time-out with nothing else to do" is a very effective parenting strategy and it is widely used.



Now, "Super Nanny" is a so-called "Pop Psychology" programme, it doesn't reflect the results of psychological studies in their entirety nor does it give reasons why certain strategies work - it's obviously crafted to be a TV show first and foremost, but this clip shows the "time-out" in motion.

A violent alternative such as spanking has an obvious negative impact when you look into it - you're showing the child that if another person acts against his/her wishes, it's perfectly acceptable to hit them and "straighten them out". All it amounts to at the end of the day is teaching the kid that it's okay to respond violently to violence.

"Time-out" has no such negative connotation - it just gives the child time to calm down and reevaluate the situation. Kids aren't dumb - they understand a whole lot more than parents assume they do and they sure as hell aren't going to show the parents how much they're mistaken.

...yes, I know I've gotten terribly off-topic - I'm just posting fun facts at this point. :P
 
30 minutes is a very long time out. when my son was 4 i never did more than 2 minutes and that's like eternity for a child.

i did take him out of the store at first to administer a time out, but with him, any disruption of my work was a point for him, and me walking out of the store showed some defeat on my part, so i started doing it on the spot and behavior changed quicker.
 
30 minutes is a very long time out. when my son was 4 i never did more than 2 minutes and that's like eternity for a child.

i did take him out of the store at first to administer a time out, but with him, any disruption of my work was a point for him, and me walking out of the store showed some defeat on my part, so i started doing it on the spot and behavior changed quicker.
The trick some parents use is saying that the child will "sit as many minutes as old it is" - if the kid's four then it's four minutes, and it has to be four minutes straight (of course this only applies to young kids - you're not exactly going to "time-out" a 15-year-old by making him/her sit in a chair for 15 minutes - that's just silly. It's merely working with the kid's imagination).

Now, I don't know the whole history of the family above, but from what I can understand, their previous methods have taught the girl that "time-out" can be terminated whenever she feels like it with no consequences, the parents were just "giving up" rather than persisting which made the situation worse, hence she was getting up and "extending" her own "time-out".

You implemented the technique effectively early on which is why your kid didn't need such long "time-outs", the case above is considered "extreme" which is why the struggle takes much more time, but gradually shortens as the kid figures out how the system works and that by resisting it only extends the punishment.
 
It's even worse when the tablet belongs to them, they get all cocky and stuff.
For f**** sake, my first electronic gadget was a secondhand Nokia when I was 10, and it was taken from
me 1 week later because I spammed my sister all the time.
Kids these days have literally everything, a cousin of mine received a freaking iPad for his 8th anniversary.
That thing costs more than all my stuff combined, and I'm twice his age!
No they don't.
 
They do where I live, I'm not sure about the US.
From my observations, it seems that the more money a family has, the less time the parents want to spend correcting their child's behaviour themselves. Instead, they rely on "outside sources", whether that be a toy, a gadget, a friend, or a nanny, to shut their kid up in public; Whereas the lower-class families aren’t afraid to discipline their children in public (for better or worse).
source- Observing the general public in the DFW area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas) and Seattle, Washington.
 
Does making children killing people to steal their money to play MMO count as harm children?
 
except they fuck up your eyes later on i'm proof of that been playing since i was 5 and i'm already half blind :P


On the contrary, numerous studies suggest videogames help with amblyopia or lazy eye. If anything, sitting to close to the screen will jack up your vision. Been playing videogames for twenty years and my vision is just fine.
 
That's cool, I wonder what the effect of a online community that teaches kids to pirate is?

Several people end up learning deep and dark sides of computing that few others do, many more learn to apply the lessons of those in the previous entry and those of us that enjoy a fine whine get to experience a less common flavour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ericthegreat

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum