This is only tangentially directed at your reply, but this is the kind of statement that I'll sometimes hear other parents say, and it makes me think that they've completely forgotten what childhood was actually like. Like, the idea that normal, fun activities and sports are bad because they bear some abstract resemblance to adult violence feels very contrived and misses what childhood play is about.
Yeah I'm not saying it's bad for the children, but it's unpleasant for me. It seems violence is a concept that gets deeper and uglier as you grow. For young children it's often abstract and maybe harmless. I just read a book to my child that turned out to have violent scenes that horrified me a bit but he barely thought about it and only in technical terms (like where is that artery ripped by the wolf). Same with people that had fun watching horror movies as teens, then find them unpleasant when they're older.
Maybe they did not forgot what the childhood was like. Instead, they remember their own childhood rather then yours. Moreover, they are not you, your exact copies.
It's not really that abstract. You smash the shit out of a cardboard box and candy comes out. Breaking things is not fun. I also hate youtube videos of people breaking stuff for fun.
I don't know. I broke a lot of things when I was a kid, mostly because I was excited to see how they work, but have no knowledge of their value or how to safely disassemble them. I don't do it as an adult because I now have that knowledge. So don't judge a kid as an adult.
I tried reading the English Wikipedia article "Piñata" but it is a mess of cringe information, especially the 16th century background. It seems that original piñatas were clay pots, before papier-mâché came into vogue.
I was going to say, that around the American Southwest, you can find piñatas for sale that are not only abstract, but also plenty of Spongebob and Disney and MCU characters, as well as "political figures that are not particularly well-liked" by Chicanos.
I wouldn't say "violence", rather, an opportunity to demolish something on (good) purpose. Same reason children will be glued to the window if workers outside are going at it with jackhammers, or, better yet, an excavator is crushing and scraping off the asphalt. (Yeah, I remember exactly how awesome that was.)
is play not an indirect method of practicing the physiological mechanisms designed for violence ? baby lions are both happy to play with other animals, and to eat them ... which inevitably progresses to predation only ... and humans are the apex predator ...
Those who don't lose the fun of hitting things graduate to hitting things with swords and end up in the SCA (not the coffee one).
I see the point about violence but I'm ok with it because it's based on fun and not anger. Olympic archery, javelin, or even fencing have an obvious past in warfare but today they've become sports.
I can only speak for some of the European versions of SCA-like clubs but there's a lot of pride-flag flying strictly-no-fascists fun activity with a dose of pretending to be children again.
That's the problem. Hitting a tied up animal until it breaks is clearly a violent affair, similar how hanging puppets in nooses or putting a doll in a guillotine.
I'm sure that there are kids growing up in places where bullfights are common thinking that torturing and killing a bull in a party-like atmosphere is fine.
I mean yeah, absolutely. But a child growing up in a western society is unlikely to encounter either of those. But generally I do see Pokemon as violent and I wouldn't let my 5 year old watch it quite yet. When he's a bit older I hope he enjoys playing through the original games and the OG tv show with me, but I see parents playing the TV show for their 4-5 year olds and I think that's just too young. Same with Spidey and friends and few other shows made "for children" which absolutely promote violence despite the colourful aesthetic.
Children have no concept of violence or empathy or right or wrong. Children often are extremely violent to other kids and sometimes even adults. They kick they scream they punch and they destroy objects. It's on the parents to teach them these concepts and its fun to have settings in which that behavior is allowed.
> Children have no concept of violence or empathy or right or wrong
This is not correct. I remember having a sense of shame when I was 4 when I tried to hurt another kid. Kids will also hide the things they do wrong, because they know it is wrong.
Or they know they'll be told it was wrong. Children start knowing nothing then they slowly absorb what they're told again and again, and what they see around them until they feel it. They go from knowing nothing, to knowing what the adults told them, to internalizing that and feeling it rather than just knowing it (maybe these 2 concepts fully overlap in other people's minds).
But until they do get all of that, they'll spend a lot of time plucking wings off of insects, burning ants with a magnifying glass, pulling the cat by the tail, or throwing rocks at dogs and frogs.
I can't say whether it was or wasn't true for you. But I can say your certainty is misplaced.
Most of your memories and everything you think of now about early childhood were formed long after it. They were created from bits and pieces of real memories, stories, backsplanations for things that happened later, retrospective, etc. Even if you had now an accurate debug dump of your child brain, you'd still not be able to process that the way you processed it back then.
Your kid brain was a black box, a CPU with a different architecture running code that you've never before or since. You later tried to recreate that code for the CPU you have now, based on input from others who've also never seen that original code or have access to that type of CPU. And you are certain you recreated it accurately?
How could it be possible for anyone to accurately reflect on the mechanisms shaping their emotional reaction to a specific situation when they were 4 years old? It should be transparently obvious that this is unknowable. First, by the time we begin to form memories, these influences have already been shaping us for months to years. Second, even if at 4 years old you remembered every moment from birth to now, you still wouldn't have the ability to actually reflect on all that data. Most adults aren't even capable of reflecting accurately on the influences affecting their current decisions!
I have other memories when I was 4, and talked about them with my parents years later. Another significant one is I wandered away and got lost in London, and some cops noticed me and picked me up and took me to the station.
My parents filled in some details, some of which I did not remember.
I don't doubt that you have memories from when you were 4, I have memories from that time too. And I'm sure you felt the shame you described. But I know that it's impossible for a 4-year-old to accurately decipher why they feel shame when they do!
You disagreed with sevenzero when they claimed that concepts like violence and right and wrong are actively taught by parents instead of being innate to children. Assuming you read all three lines of sevenzero's comment before disagreeing: the perspective of your 4-year-old self is not a reliable source, because 4-year-old children cannot accurately differentiate between innate or taught feelings.
I would certainly agree that one gets taught more refined and nuanced notions of right and wrong, but those are innate feelings. At least for me.
I recall seeing a TV show where they studied very young people by putting them in right and wrong situations, and they definitely knew what was right and wrong.
> I would certainly agree that one gets taught more refined and nuanced notions of right and wrong, but those are innate feelings. At least for me.
How could a person who was taught social concepts of right and wrong since birth ever hope to reliably determine which parts of said concepts in their own mind are innate, and which aren't? Human minds are infamous for being terrible at introspecting their own mechanisms at the best of times.
> I recall seeing a TV show where they studied very young people by putting them in right and wrong situations, and they definitely knew what was right and wrong.
Unless said very young people were raised by wolves, chances are that they've been taught these concepts since birth as well. You can't determine the innateness by only looking at people who share this bias.
Because we have proof that humans who aren't taught a subset of social behaviors never show any of them. It doesn't matter what we've bred foxes to do - "sense of right and wrong" is not the same as "social behavior", and innate traits in one species can be non-innate in another. You cannot analyze a cantaloupe to determine the taste of bananas, no matter how hard you try.
It is important to understand our own human limits. We cannot reason our way through our own minds, we can only accept our biases and try to work around them. But the first step is being humble enough to accept that human intuition is no substitute for actual research.
No, not all kids are a little sociopaths. They in fact hide things they have no experience of being reprimanded or punished for, because they feel bad about them. Kids do care about other kids, animals or adults in their lives. They do feel empathy - underdeveloped and sometimes weird, but they display it very clearly.
I am an incredibly non-violent person, but have a toddler has really made me work hard to understand the difference in what associations we attach to "violence" as adults.
I try to help him understand this slowly, but a lot of "play" can look violent to my eyes, and I struggle to remember that. A 3 year old just doesn't see it that way yet, and that's fine. But it's hard to remember that in the moment.
