Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: Games should have a limit?

  1. #61
    Regular Member M3S1H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Outside your house.
    Posts
    172
    No, not really. Games stimulate what we aren't allowed to do in modern times. Games are a good stress-relief tool. Let's say you come home from work, and your boss was a total jerk today. You have many options, but if you actually end up shooting your boss rather than shooting an employer while playing GTA, you're in massive trouble. However, this isn't the only use for games. If your life is dull and you crave something more, try playing fantasy or adventure genres. If you're a "slow-goer", try games like RPG's that have a slow, turn-based system. Games also move art in different styles and animations. I hope to be a manga-ka, but I also hope to become the artist for at least one game. Basically, games capture what reality cannot bring us, in safe, convenient console systems.

  2. #62
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Long rant short: Positive Reinforcement is a stupid idea. We need to prevent kids from doing wrong, not try to bribe them to do right. It's a horrible form of sheltering that contradicts the reality of the parent-child relationship. As a loving mentor, the parent is responsible for CONDITIONING the child not to do wrong or self-harmful deeds, as well as usher them into the real world. PR is //not// how the real world works. Sheltering is dangerous. Kids should be exposed to reality; the parents' role is to put it in context.
    Whether or not you think it is a stupid idea is irrelevant, Cyp. On average, positive reinforcement done correctly (rewarding achievements and exceptionally good behaviour with appropriate rewards; rewarding minor good behaviours with praise or approval; not rewarding or verbally punishing bad behaviours) is proven to be more effective in instilling values into kids than the use of punishment-focused child-rearing method. There are a number of studies (interesting article) that corroborate this: it's not just me talking shit.
    On positive reinforcement inspiring manipulative and deceptive behaviours: how is that a bad thing? Most high jobs are based around some sort of manipulation of others - teaching a child how to control others is likely to benefit their future career and allow them to avoid conflict.
    Kids should also be sheltered to some extent: would you be comfortable allowing your child to watch a violent rape scene in a film, for example? That would probably traumatise the poor little bastard. Even existential truths can be mentally scarring and lead to depression: "The universe does not care whether you live or die, whether your family care about you, or whether you've just been beaten and left for dead." Sometimes people need to be shielded from the truth until they have the resources to deal with it.

  3. #63
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    What I meant by "PR doesn't accurately reflect the real world" is that you're not going to get a pat on the back for every good thing you do. Sometimes you have to be selfless, and do good for the sake of doing good, acknowledging full well that there is no reward at the end of the rope. Hell, sometimes you have to do good knowing you're going to get PUNISHED in the end. That's the intrinsic value of a good deed: selflessness, and the desire to do something constructive or helpful without an ulterior motive. PR totally steps all over that idea. Also, taking away privileges is not a punishment in my book, considering they //are privileges// and they're not to be taken for granted to begin with. Boredom is not a punishment. Kids get bored all the time. I'm sure it doesn't inspire them to reevaluate themselves.

    Also, Delphinus, there are a number of studies that show PR has adverse effects as well: http://www.betterparenting.com/child...reinforcement/ Of course, this is because, when you try to raise your child like you raise a dog, you kind of undermine their intelligence. According to the studies cited in the article, PR stops working as soon as the child figures out that it's a reward system, after which they try to play to their own benefit (totally defeating the purpose of doing good). That's what happens when you try to bribe your kids.

    Moderating what your child watches, but allowing them to get age-appropriate dosages of reality is not sheltering. Sheltering is keeping them from getting said reality kicks. But most of the parents who are complaining about violent video games probably never bothered to sit down with their kid and put these things in context for them. And it comes as such a huge shock to them when kids are using curse words and reenacting violent things. That's because the outside world is exposing these kids to the reality their parents hid from them, and were too cautious to explain to them. And then they blame games, movies, television, etc. for beating them to the punch. That's why //parents// have to beat //the media// to the punch, so they're exposed to the right ideas right off the bat. Hence, don't shelter your kids, otherwise they're going to learn it from someone or something else (potentially, in the wrong way).

    Also, I'm going to end this debate now. The fact that you think instilling manipulative behavior in children is good parenting makes me think I'm debating w/ the wrong person.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 02-01-2011 at 08:03 PM.

  4. #64
    Teen Member Kiiryu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    20
    Fiction doesn't need limits so long as the viewer is responsible enough to know the difference between a harmless fantasy and a reality with consequences. In other words, as long as our morals prevent things from crossing the line between the two.

    Which for most sane people, should be all of the time.
    Last edited by Kiiryu; 02-01-2011 at 11:02 PM.

  5. #65
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Also, taking away privileges is not a punishment in my book, considering they //are privileges// and they're not to be taken for granted to begin with. Boredom is not a punishment. Kids get bored all the time. I'm sure it doesn't inspire them to reevaluate themselves.
    It's not about boredom, it's about deserving and not deserving. Kids don't have jobs yet; you can't fine them for doing something wrong. And children often place great value in material objects like games. Are you trying to tell me that if a child does something wrong and you tell them that they can't have any of the cake you bought for tonight now, they will just shrug and move on? They might SCREAM AND THROW A TANTRUM. I'm pretty surprised you don't think that will make any impact. If a kid continues being cruel or troublesome, then its time to sit down and explain why being good is better than being bad. In most cases, a parent's success is proportionate to the amount of time they spend parenting.

    I'm not saying starve them either; dessert is just an example. Not letting them play with a special toy, or game, or not letting them have a playdate is going to instill in them: "If I do things that hurt someone else in some way, I will not have as much fun." Which, in a similar fashion, is what happens in real life: "If I do things that hurt someone else in some way, I will go to jail/lose money/etc."

    As for manipulative behavior, I would say that while I would not consider it a positive trait, most kids will attempt this anyway. As a parent, one must be aware of the ways a child could manipulate the system and set up rules in a way that avoids most methods. Be smart. If you realise a kid is saying thank you all the time just to get rewards, lessen the rewards over time. As they get older, a parent's expectations must raise, and more will be expected of the child to get rewarded. Eventually, when they are older, children will hopefully be mentally mature enough to see the deeper reasons for why they are being nice.
    Last edited by Fenn; 02-02-2011 at 05:31 PM.

  6. #66
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn View Post
    It's not about boredom.
    It is about boredom, though. You both highly overestimate and underestimate the constitution of kids on different levels. If you take away a child's toy or video game, I'm pretty sure they're not going to sit down and think about what they've done. You overestimate their ability to empathize and think rationally. If anything, they'll just feel like you've stolen something from them (possessive) and/or feel punished by the lack of entertainment said thing provided. Also, kids are capable of finding tons of things to do to pass their time, given how curious they are. You underestimate their ability to entertain themselves.

    You are an adult, therefore you can comprehend the moralistic undertones of taking away privileges; such things as entitlement, whether or not the child deserves it, etc, etc. But, chances are, a child doesn't think more of it than, "oh shit, what am I going to do without my Xbox?"

    But this is under the assumption that you're talking about young children. Also, doesn't that kind of conditioning nurture materialism? Equating a material good to a good deed sounds like a sure fire way to raise a materialistic and/or spoiled child.

    Are you trying to tell me that if a child does something wrong and you tell them that they can't have any of the cake you bought for tonight now, they will just shrug and move on? They might SCREAM AND THROW A TANTRUM.
    The fact that this is even a norm is a prime example of why parents need to be more heavy-handed.

  7. #67
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    It is about boredom, though. You both highly overestimate and underestimate the constitution of kids on different levels. If you take away a child's toy or video game, I'm pretty sure they're not going to sit down and think about what they've done. You overestimate their ability to empathize and think rationally. If anything, they'll just feel like you've stolen something from them (possessive) and/or feel punished by the lack of entertainment said thing provided. Also, kids are capable of finding tons of things to do to pass their time, given how curious they are. You underestimate their ability to entertain themselves.

    You are an adult, therefore you can comprehend the moralistic undertones of taking away privileges; such things as entitlement, whether or not the child deserves it, etc, etc. But, chances are, a child doesn't think more of it than, "oh shit, what am I going to do without my Xbox?"

    But this is under the assumption that you're talking about young children. Also, doesn't that kind of conditioning nurture materialism? Equating a material good to a good deed sounds like a sure fire way to raise a materialistic and/or spoiled child.

    The fact that this is even a norm is a prime example of why parents need to be more heavy-handed.
    Yes, I suppose we need to identify what age group we are talking about here.

    Also, make note that I was not suggesting this as the only action available to parents. And, any form of punishment, for young children, will instill materialism because it is how children function. They don't understand, as you pointed out, the nuances of being selfless and giving without receiving. This must be taught gradually to them.

    What form of punishment ARE you for anyway?

  8. #68
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    I'm okay with light beatings. A spank, or a gentle slap on the wrist, possibly a tap on the head. As a child, I was beat pretty severely, but I //in no way// condone that level of corporal punishment against children. Basically, you only hit them to make a point, not to hurt them. I'm not for hurting children (that is not the objective of corporal punishment), but I do believe punishment should //always// leave an impression on a child, beit through a small dosage of pain. That is the objective of punishment, afterall: to make the lesson stick.

  9. #69
    Lucky Member Blue_Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    A Champagne Supernovar
    Posts
    955
    We got smacked on the bum a couple times, but what really taught us, was to not only have everything taken away, but to sit in time out. We weren't allowed to talk or do anything. Since it took away from us doing what we learned, my sis and I didn't usually give Mom much trouble until our teens. I think a combination of both is necessary. I also think, over all, boys are a little different to raise than girls, so perhaps this technique doesn't work will boys, and certainly not all kids.

    I think we shouldn't be shy to give a couple "embarrassment" smacks (never on the face), but overall, there are ways to control your kids without using brute force. It takes patience, and that's the last thing people want to hear: it's all instant gratification. I think people also spoil their kids because 1) they feel guilty because they don't spend enough time with them, 2) it's easier to give them what they want and let them play what they want, and just bitch at video game companies for not "rating" and telling them what their kids can play and can't, and 3) fear of DCFS coming out for even the slightest physical discipline. Basically, there's no common sense among anyone, and they either punish too little, or punish too much. And creative persons/companies creating a story and game get caught in the middle of it.

    That's how I feel...sorry that was such a long ramble.
    Website!: www.ceruleandreams.org
    Updated 4/6/13: Please Critique

  10. #70
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    I'm okay with light beatings. A spank, or a gentle slap on the wrist, possibly a tap on the head. As a child, I was beat pretty severely, but I //in no way// condone that level of corporal punishment against children. Basically, you only hit them to make a point, not to hurt them. I'm not for hurting children (that is not the objective of corporal punishment), but I do believe punishment should //always// leave an impression on a child, beit through a small dosage of pain. That is the objective of punishment, afterall: to make the lesson stick.
    I fail to see how this is any different from denial of priveleges. It's like a different form: instead of "good act, good things" it reinforces "bad act, bad things."

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_Dragon View Post
    We got smacked on the bum a couple times, but what really taught us, was to not only have everything taken away, but to sit in time out. We weren't allowed to talk or do anything. Since it took away from us doing what we learned, my sis and I didn't usually give Mom much trouble until our teens. I think a combination of both is necessary. I also think, over all, boys are a little different to raise than girls, so perhaps this technique doesn't work will boys, and certainly not all kids.

    I think we shouldn't be shy to give a couple "embarrassment" smacks (never on the face), but overall, there are ways to control your kids without using brute force. It takes patience, and that's the last thing people want to hear: it's all instant gratification. I think people also spoil their kids because 1) they feel guilty because they don't spend enough time with them, 2) it's easier to give them what they want and let them play what they want, and just bitch at video game companies for not "rating" and telling them what their kids can play and can't, and 3) fear of DCFS coming out for even the slightest physical discipline. Basically, there's no common sense among anyone, and they either punish too little, or punish too much. And creative persons/companies creating a story and game get caught in the middle of it.

    That's how I feel...sorry that was such a long ramble.
    I agree with you mostly. Time out is a very useful method, worked on me all the time. But the problem is it requires parents to actually, god forbid, WATCH their children! This unheard of concept will never work in today's world!

    I still think that anything beyond a grabbing of the wrist (to physically prevent the child from hurting themself or doing something bad) is unneeded.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •