The Disillusionment of Children

[Kips]

This topic is to debate about whether we should disillusion children or not. This means whether we should straightforwardly tell them that Santa Claus does not exist, that we leave money beneath their pillows when they lose a tooth, that Mickey Mouse is not real, or that we let them have their belief in this until they reach the right age to strip them of said thoughts.

I personally am against this kind of thing as it means that children will just not be that- children. Without a childhood, innovation gives way to conformity, and imagination gives way to standards. Without these key human traits, in my opinion, development of the fine arts, architecture, and other aesthetics disappear to let sheer monotone dullness be the primary mode of the world.

Note that this topic does not discuss peer pressure, conformity or imagination but simply whether we should allow these fantasies or crush them before they go to their head.

 

[Digital Watches]

Eh. It's fine to have myths, but I don't think indoctrinating children with the irrational belief that fairy tales and the like are factual is inherently beneficial in any way. There's nothing wrong with telling children stories, and there's certainly no need to clarify specifically that these stories are untrue, but it's probably more harmful to insist on their truth when pressed. One doesn't have to believe something to be a true story to enjoy it and allow it to tantalize one's imagination, even in childhood.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

It's pretty pointless to ruin their childish hopes and dreams. I disagree that there's no detrimental factor, because fairy tales help foster and strengthen their imagination. Imagination is becoming increasing important in society, with the advent of the flood of computer programs targeting the youth.

These tend to drain the necessity to imagine and think outside of the box, and might harm the child's creativity as they mature. It also adds a kind of "magic" and excitement to such events that really define childhood.

Plus, why bother ruining it when they're young. Peers or some random bitter adult at school will just ruin it for them anyway.

 

[Kips]

The point against this is that if they are literally bred to not think so, then they will literally 'not know what they are missing'. If done with those who are inable to innovate already, wouldn't it simply allow us to indoctrinate them into the workforce?

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Hmm... I've found that the best leaders in life are the ones who were never afraid to dream big and reach to the ends of their imagination. A society full of mindless, yet capable workers spoon-fed dogma since childhood might as well be worthless with no one with a crazy enough imagination to really make use of all of that potential.

The children might not have known what they missed, and they may already me inherently creative and innovative, but that doesn't account into the fact that all the creativity in the world doesn't mean that you've had a fulfilling childhood. Am I implying that childhood is based around children absorbing adults' lies and deriving excitement and wonder from them? Yes, actually, I am.

 

[Scar]

I don't think that fairy tales and Santa are what gives people the ability to innovate. I mean, true, thinking of a world without these things is pretty tough, and it's easy to just slip into this miserable, dreary place.

But that's not the way it would be. I mean, taking away Christmas doesn't mean taking away presents and gifts and toys. I, personally, don't even like the idear of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and all that jazz. I guess there's a pretty good reason it's perpetuated though; few things are as amazing as watching the pure wonder a child experiences on Christmas morning. It's about as close as you can get to Magic. Besides Disney World.

Still, I grew up feeling a little betrayed. I mean when it comes down to it, it's just a lie. It really made it easy to abandon my Christian faith too (I have agnostic/atheistic beliefs now).

Anyways, to completely hit the point, a world without Santa isn't really that bad. Children will still be children, and they'll just get excited over something else. Like Hotwheels or Legos. I don't see the need to make up things to be excited over, but I can see why people do it.

More importantly, unless everyone else is going to stop, I sure as hell won't. Being the ONLY toddler who knows Santa isn't real will almost definitely have some detrimental effect down the line.

 

[snex]

Being the ONLY toddler who knows Santa isn't real will almost definitely have some detrimental effect down the line.

yeah, learning how science works and informs us about reality early will most certainly stunt your child's development. he might even have the gall to tell all the other kids about it, and then whatever what will we do! a society full of freethinking little turds who know more than their parents, no sir we cant have that. we must lord it over them by making sure theyre dumber than we are!

 

[Scar]

lol @ You thinking that anything would happen BESIDES all the other kids telling the "nonbeliever" (as he will be called) that he's wrong and stupid, him getting in trouble by the teacher/principle, his parents and other parents notified, and him (and probably his parents for that matter) being alienated from the gradeschool community.

Yes he would most certainly tell the other kids about it and he would ultimately be alienated. I mean it's a pretty simple thought experiment.

Telling a kid that there's no Santa is also NOT teaching them how science works.

Also note that my position is not to feed kids garbage but rather tell them the truth. i.e. You and I are of the same opinion. The only reason we can't do what we want, I claim, is because something ******** will happen, like the kid being alienated. We are a part of this society and that cannot be changed.

Feel free to continue debating entirely in theory though. You won't get anything done, but you'll certainly set things right in an imaginary parallel universe. Not like I haven't tried to do the same, but it's much more enlightening to argue things on both sides.

 

[snex]

show us your evidence that children who learn the truth about santa are alienated.

 

[Scar]

Yes he would most certainly tell the other kids about it and he would ultimately be alienated. I mean it's a pretty simple thought experiment.

LMAO, well first I took a test group of a bunch of kids, and separated them from their parents at age 5. Then...

Show me your evidence that you read and comprehended my retort. Thought experiments are what scientists do when they can't perform an actual experiment. Use what you know about the world, and create a situation in your mind, and have it play out as it most likely would in that world.

I don't really feel like talking down to you / explaining what a thought experiment is. Why don't you give it a shot, tell me what you come up with, and then I'll tell you if that sounds reasonable or not.

You could definitely just come back and say "Well the kid tells other kids and they all say 'YEAH! THAT MAKES MORE SENSE!' And then they rally together and all tell their parents and then tell all their friends from other schools and there is a huge motion to dismiss Santa."

I won't accept that answer btw. For a very good reason, first it would never happen and that's obvious.

Second, tell me we haven't tried to do that with religious people. No, they cling to their faith. It's what everyone who is religious does, and toddlers cling to Santa as strongly as the hopelessly religious to their faith.

Edit: Also, I find it annoying that you don't respond to everything I say in a given post. It's all relevant, and even if I concede to a point you make it still leaves everything else I've said for you to talk about.

 

[Digital Watches]

LMAO, well first I took a test group of a bunch of kids, and separated them from their parents at age 5. Then...

Show me your evidence that you read and comprehended my retort. Thought experiments are what scientists do when they can't perform an actual experiment. Use what you know about the world, and create a situation in your mind, and have it play out as it most likely would in that world.

I don't really feel like talking down to you / explaining what a thought experiment is. Why don't you give it a shot, tell me what you come up with, and then I'll tell you if that sounds reasonable or not.

You could definitely just come back and say "Well the kid tells other kids and they all say 'YEAH! THAT MAKES MORE SENSE!' And then they rally together and all tell their parents and then tell all their friends from other schools and there is a huge motion to dismiss Santa."

I won't accept that answer btw. For a very good reason, first it would never happen and that's obvious.

Second, tell me we haven't tried to do that with religious people. No, they cling to their faith. It's what everyone who is religious does, and toddlers cling to Santa as strongly as the hopelessly religious to their faith.

Edit: Also, I find it annoying that you don't respond to everything I say in a given post. It's all relevant, and even if I concede to a point you make it still leaves everything else I've said for you to talk about.

Um... first off, are you seriously defending what is essentially baseless conjecture with footing in what can be described, at best, as conventional wisdom? A "thought experiment" has never been considered actual scientific evidence, and it appalls me that you're trying to use it as such, ESPECIALLY in a social science situation, as interaction between humans would generally be considered, wherein there are no "basic physics" you can know to get an at least somewhat accurate mental model.

So basically, you are left, again, with a baseless claim that all or most children who disbelieve in Santa Claus would be alienated by their peers.

And to those contending that the disbelief in myths stunts a child's ability to imagine and innovate: I don't see your logic there, either. Exposure to lots of fiction, I imagine, is great for bolstering these things, but you're making a huge leap to say that said child must believe aforementioned fiction to be true to benefit from it.

 

[Scar]

Yes, a baseless claim that someone completely different from everyone else in a given community will in fact be alienated by that community. What a leap of logic. Truly appalling.

 

[Digital Watches]

Yes, a baseless claim that someone completely different from everyone else in a given community will in fact be alienated by that community. What a leap of logic. Truly appalling.

Um, yes, actually. You seem to still be very smug in the notion that what you've said is so obviously true that it doesn't warrant inspection. It confuses me especially that something so "obvious" is somehow impossible to produce a single study for. It doesn't surprise me, however, that you seem to think this idea to be irrefutable, despite that you've not even tried to support it.

I can do that too: For the sake of argument, I'm going to state that my theory is that children will view this person as an authority on the issue, as since they're young and have adults constantly telling them new things, they're used to the idea that there's only one person in the room who knows the right answer.

This isn't a position I actually take, but note how I defended it with logic based entirely upon conjecture and assumption. I see this as no different from what you're doing.

 

[Kips]

Remember that childhood is only a recent invention when child-labor laws came into effect, essentially creating school as they had nowhere else to put children. If they could work then, why shouldn't they now if we provide a better environment? We would only need a few bright, innovative people to lead the future with the mindless workers doing the hard work and being guided.

 

[Digital Watches]

Remember that childhood is only a recent invention when child-labor laws came into effect, essentially creating school as they had nowhere else to put children. If they could work then, why shouldn't they now if we provide a better environment? We would only need a few bright, innovative people to lead the future with the mindless workers doing the hard work and being guided.

Way to ignore all the research into developmental psychology, buddy.

To say that childhood was "invented" is fairly ignorant, as it's assuming society and law supersede reality, rather than working within it. Essentially "it's true because we say it's true."

 

[Kips]

Way to ignore all the research into developmental psychology, buddy.

To say that childhood was "invented" is fairly ignorant, as it's assuming society and law supersede reality, rather than working within it. Essentially "it's true because we say it's true."

It isn't psychology or ignorance, for your information. It's the truth.

Childhood was practically invented due to child labor laws coming into effect. Instead of the little people working in factories and such where it was too dangerous, they now roamed they streets. This presented a hazard as crime actually rose due to bored boys roaming the streets, leading to the introduction of mandatory public schooling, which was a precedent to childhood actually coming into effect, instead of working for a few dollars for a week.

 

[snex]

so if kips is correct, we should predict to find no mentions of childhood before the, oh lets say 1800s?

thats a pretty bold prediction that i wouldnt bet on.

 

[Scar]

Clearly I'm amongst geniuses. It's real cool to argue over when childhood was "invented" without a definition of the word/concept "childhood."

 

[Digital Watches]

Clearly I'm amongst geniuses. It's real cool to argue over when childhood was "invented" without a definition of the word/concept "childhood."

Um. I think it's pretty clear from context that that's kind of exactly the fallacy I was pointing out. The "invention" of childhood that Kips was talking about was in a legal/societal sense, and I argued that advances in developmental psychology (and biology, for that matter) have shown us that this is clearly not the only way in which we should define "childhood," nor is it a means of doing so which is recent in origin. The definition of "childhood" i was contending to be supported by findings in developmental psychology would also be more pertinent to this debate.

Short version: El two read.

 

[Kips]

Thank you, Digital, that's what I meant and I should have been clearer. Advances have been made in those fields that render my point a bit weaker, but I still say that if they could do it then, they can do it now, so why shouldn't we cruelly test them to weed out the ones who won't go far? Not that this is my personal belief, I'm just wondering if it is possible to do this.