# "The Polar Express" sends a bad message to children (spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894 "2004-11-21T01:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/81 "2004-11-23T12:03:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not necessarily. (Incidentally, the sharing of certain common elements does not establish the equality of two sets. Be careful of composition fallacies.) But the study is not about patience; it is about the consequences of decisions. A person may be very impatient even as he waits, reasoning that waiting is better in the long run. Do you believe that the children didn’t _understand_ that eating candy now meant they wouldn’t get more later? If so, where’s the evidence? If not, how are “the consequences of decisions” relevant? > [@](#): > > With new neural connections being established at a rate of 30,000 per second, and with synaptic activity being the very definition of thinking, a growing brain produces quite a different effect on reasoning than a growing body does on walking. OK, but that argument still boils down to “a changing brain can’t reason”, even though everyone’s brain is changing in some fashion. Since the mere fact that their brains are changing obviously doesn’t mean their brains don’t work, how can we tell whether those changes affect their ability to reason, and to what degree? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/82 "2004-11-23T12:15:54Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Do you believe that the children didn’t _understand_ that eating candy now meant they wouldn’t get more later? If so, where’s the evidence? If not, how are “the consequences of decisions” relevant? I think what they thought was that they could both get the candy now and more later. The notion that they could decide their own fate was too foreign. > [@](#): > > OK, but that argument still boils down to “a changing brain can’t reason”, even though everyone’s brain is changing in some fashion. Since the mere fact that their brains are changing obviously doesn’t mean their brains don’t work, how can we tell whether those changes affect their ability to reason, and to what degree? Don’t work? Brains do much more than merely reason. It isn’t that their brain doesn’t work; it’s that not all of their brain exists yet. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/83 "2004-11-23T12:19:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think what they thought was that they could both get the candy now and more later. The notion that they could decide their own fate was too foreign. So, is there any evidence to support that belief? If all the kids were confused after the study and asked why they didn’t get the extra candy, surely the authors would’ve mentioned it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/84 "2004-11-23T13:16:45Z")
> [@gatopescado](#): > > **1897?** Goddamn! Just how old are you? [Whoosh?](http://www.wasted-days.com/virginia.php)😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/85 "2004-11-23T14:08:28Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > So, is there any evidence to support that belief? If all the kids were confused after the study and asked why they didn’t get the extra candy, surely the authors would’ve mentioned it. What do you mean “evidence”? The event is the evidence. What is required to interpret the event is, oddly enough, reason. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/86 "2004-11-23T14:13:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What do you mean “evidence”? The event is the evidence. What is required to interpret the event is, oddly enough, reason. I think Mr. 2001 is showing a very healthy skepticism of your interpretation, which is the point of this thread. We are all very skeptical of your claims that children cannot manage skepticism, or in particular, engage in rational thought under the age of 9. Is this all an exercise in bringing others to engage in critical thinking and skepticism regarding wild and baseless claims? Bravo, **Liberal** , you got me on that one! ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/87 "2004-11-23T14:22:40Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > All I know is that the CGI humans in that movie looked creepy as hell. Why anyone would watch that when **The Incredibles** is showing two theaters down is beyond me. 😃 [Are you out of your mind?! Don’t you know The Incredibles is bourgeoisie trash from the republican right?!](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&c=3&s=klawans)[…or](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041119) > [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > Besides, I’m pretty sure Santa’s a Democrat. “God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.“ : P. J. O’Rourke ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/88 "2004-11-23T16:21:33Z")
Many people in this thread have mentioned the book version of the Polar Express. It’s important to note that the ridicule of critical thought described by **Dio** is not in the book. And by the way **Dio** , I’m with you on this one. My son saw this movie without me. Though he is only 6 years old, he has a healthy skeptical side to him. I’ll take advantage of this opportunity to have a talk with him about this. Since he has already been ridiculed on his school bus because of his lack of religious beliefs I think I will find an understanding ear. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/89 "2004-11-23T18:23:15Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I think Mr. 2001 is showing a very healthy skepticism of your interpretation, which is the point of this thread. We are all very skeptical of your claims that children cannot manage skepticism, or in particular, engage in rational thought under the age of 9. > > Is this all an exercise in bringing others to engage in critical thinking and skepticism regarding wild and baseless claims? Bravo, **Liberal** , you got me on that one! Quite frankly, precious few adults (let alone children) even understand what philosophical skepticism is, often confusing it with ordinary incredulity. For either a child or an adult to exercise skepticism, he must understand that his denial of a claim cannot be mitigated by some other claim of the same ken. Ordinary incredulity, on the other hand, can be mitigated only by some other claim _which the incredulous person does not doubt_. That is, merely to doubt whether some statement is true is tantamount to having no doubt that some other statement is true. But skepticism holds that whether some statement is true is contingent on whether that statement itself _can_ be true. Primarilly two schools, the Academics and Pyrrhonians, have fought over the epistemic basis of skepticism for more than two thousand years. See [this essay](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/) for more detail. As I said, I think there is much equivocation going on here. Children can rationalize in the sense that they can remember rules like looking both ways before crossing the street. And they can be skeptical in the sense of doubting that something is true because of something else that they already know. But these are very primitive brain functions that even non-human animals can replicate. Children cannot rationalize in the sense of _establishing_ a coherent rules system either rationally or empirically, nor can they differentiate between a statement that is true and a statement that is false without pitting one statement against another. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/90 "2004-11-23T18:24:35Z")
Generally. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/91 "2004-11-23T19:00:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Quite frankly, precious few adults (let alone children) even understand what philosophical skepticism is, often confusing it with ordinary incredulity. For either a child or an adult to exercise skepticism, he must understand that his denial of a claim cannot be mitigated by some other claim of the same ken. Ordinary incredulity, on the other hand, can be mitigated only by some other claim which the incredulous person does not doubt. That is, merely to doubt whether some statement is true is tantamount to having no doubt that some other statement is true. But skepticism holds that whether some statement is true is contingent on whether that statement itself can be true. Primarilly two schools, the Academics and Pyrrhonians, have fought over the epistemic basis of skepticism for more than two thousand years. See this essay for more detail. So, when you said it was impossible for a 9 year old to think rationally (during your argument against encouraging skepticism in children) you meant that most adults don’t engage in philosophical skepticism? Alrighty then. > [@](#): > > As I said, I think there is much equivocation going on here. Children can rationalize in the sense that they can remember rules like looking both ways before crossing the street. And they can be skeptical in the sense of doubting that something is true because of something else that they already know. But these are very primitive brain functions that even non-human animals can replicate. Again, I am trying to compare this with your original statement, and I find it to be a fantastic effort at diversion and avoidance. Apart from that, I am sure you don’t mean to argue that children’s thought cannot be distinguished from “non-human animals.” > [@](#): > > Children cannot rationalize in the sense of establishing a coherent rules system either rationally or empirically, nor can they differentiate between a statement that is true and a statement that is false without pitting one statement against another. Since “rationally” is a method used in defining your term “rationalize,” I cannot formulate an argument. I would simply say that children younger than 9 are quite capable of establishing and employing a coherent rules system. > [@](#): > > nor can they differentiate between a statement that is true and a statement that is false without pitting one statement against another. How can anybody differentiate between two things without contrasting or comparing them? Isn’t that the definition of differentiating between two things? You are using terms in idiosyncratic ways, making dialogue quite difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/92 "2004-11-23T21:07:37Z")
> [@Hentor](#): > > So, when you said it was impossible for a 9 year old to think rationally (during your argument against encouraging skepticism in children) you meant that most adults don’t engage in philosophical skepticism? Alrighty then. “Generally” means that there can be exceptions, but in this case, they are rare. One must first know what skepticism is before one can encourage it. Almost all adults (given fully functioning brains) engage in philosophical skepticism (many without knowing that they are). This includes people of faith. > [@](#): > > Again, I am trying to compare this with your original statement, and I find it to be a fantastic effort at diversion and avoidance. Apart from that, I am sure you don’t mean to argue that children’s thought cannot be distinguished from “non-human animals.” It is perfectly consistent with my original statement. Even a dog understands behavioral rules. These things come from a lower part of the brain in the medial temporal lobe, called the “amygdala”. Children and teens use their amygdala, for example, to analyze and identify facial expressions, whereas adults use their frontal lobes. ([Cite](http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/epowell.html).) The reason children can’t use certain portions of their brains is because, as I’ve been saying, they aren’t finished. A child’s brain is not a small adult brain — it is an _unfinished_ brain. > [@](#): > > How can anybody differentiate between two things without contrasting or comparing them? Isn’t that the definition of differentiating between two things? I gave you a link to a very thorough explanation. Skepticism looks at things through analytic examination. If a thing is false, it is false because it _must_ be false (a metaphysical modality for the Academics, an epistemic modality for the Pyrrhonians), not because something else contradicts it. The skeptic is equally skeptical of the claims “A implies B” and “A does not imply B”. The doubter merely doubts that “A implies B” if he already believes that “A does not imply B” is true. This stuff is frontal lobe territory. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/93 "2004-11-24T05:00:47Z")
Basically, this debate is the rationality debate. DTC is saying that it is a poor movie that teaches children to accept conclusions generated outside of rationality. The protagonist is apparently very rational and skeptical. I’ll take the side of the movie. The ancient Greeks invented logic and rationality. They invented it as a tool to solve certain problems. The primary function of the tool of rationality is that of definition. We continue to define things in terms of their relation to other things until we have a sufficient number of relationships to give us an approximation of understanding. Once we realize that modern rationality is a tool, and not an end unto itself, we can say some interesting things about it: There is sometimes more than one tool that can do a given job. The ancient greeks may well have come up with some alternate system that we use instead. They came up with rationality. Maybe one of these alternate systems would have been better than rationality. As a tool rationality has flaws and limitations, like a hammer. A hammer is not the ideal tool to solve all problems. Those who are a slave to rationality are only using the hammer. A proof of the flaw of rationality is that it does not address meaning. This relates to this, this relates to the other… so on and so forth. Another proof is that rationality is itself irrational. Think about it. Inevitably over-applied rationalism leads to solipsism. If we are to subscribe to rationality will still have to take many things as givens, on faith, such as physical existance. All our data comes from our senses. Even if we do accept the data it still doesn’t address the “why” of something. Let us examine a hypothetical incident: A house catches fire. A man enters the burning house and attempts to rescue the people trapped inside. He in turn is trapped and let us say he and three others die. From a rational standpoint we can state: “Three biological entities of the “meat puppet” variety were coincident in space time with a conflagaration of their domicile. A fourth meat puppet joined them, and the group was oxidized into ash carbon and volatile chemicals. So what?” From this standpoint we are simply describing a chemical reaction that occured without meaning. From a more humane standpoint we can impose some articles we consider on faith… values and describe the event with meaning. “Three children were trapped in a fire. A stranger sacrificed his life in a selfless attempt to rescue them, but all four burned to death. God rest their souls.” With a little faith and a little value things certainly sound better. If nothing else there is that. With rationality we cannot legitimately explain why the man sacrificed himself in the rescue attempt, nor even why the whole thing is worth mentioning in the first place. To give something meaning we need something else besides rationality. It supplies no meaning. So, as described in the OP, the Polar Express is an argument against becoming a slave to rationality, and therefore a being empty of meaning. This **is** a good lesson for children as it seems that most go through some stage where rationality is their God, and they pretend not to care or place value on anything because it said meaning or value cannot be rationally demonstrated. That attitude is, of course, immature. Therefore the movie identifies one of the risks and pitfalls of a burgeoning understanding of the world, and is a good lesson. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/94 "2004-11-24T05:27:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What do you mean “evidence”? The event is the evidence. What is required to interpret the event is, oddly enough, reason. No, no. Here’s the event: Some children chose to eat a smaller amount of candy now instead of waiting to eat a larger amount later. This part is not under dispute. Here’s your explanation: “what they thought was that they could both get the candy now and more later”. You believe the kids failed to understand that having candy now meant not having candy later. But unless you were one of those kids, you don’t know what was going through their minds, so I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. My question to you is whether you have evidence to support your claim about _why_ they made the decisions they did. In other words, why should I or anyone else believe your explanation of these kids’ actions, if (1) you weren’t there, (2) the study says nothing to indicate that they didn’t understand the deal, and (3) there are other explanations that don’t paint the kids as stupid? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/95 "2004-11-24T09:51:06Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > No, no. > > Here’s the event: Some children chose to eat a smaller amount of candy now instead of waiting to eat a larger amount later. This part is not under dispute. > > Here’s your explanation: “what they thought was that they could both get the candy now and more later”. You believe the kids failed to understand that having candy now meant not having candy later. But unless you were one of those kids, you don’t know what was going through their minds, so I’d like to know how you came to that conclusion. > > My question to you is whether you have evidence to support your claim about _why_ they made the decisions they did. In other words, why should I or anyone else believe your explanation of these kids’ actions, if (1) you weren’t there, (2) the study says nothing to indicate that they didn’t understand the deal, and (3) there are other explanations that don’t paint the kids as stupid? Once more, kids are not stupid. Having an unfinished brain doesn’t make you stupid. It makes you intellectually and emotionally immature. As I told you already, it is the reasonable conclusion that the young children were thinking solely with the “reptilian” portion of the brain. It is reasonable because that is all they have that is fully developed. What they had available to them was their olfactory cortex, their amygdala, and their hippocampus. They had memories (the hippocampus) of having candy and then having more candy. They had an emotional attachment (the amygdala) to the candy. And they had a physical attraction (the olfactory cortex) to the candy. What they did not have was a sense of time and space in either the Aristotlean, Galilean, or Einsteinian sense. Except for those who might have been exceptionally gifted, they could not comprehend the abstraction of some future event, and therefore could not imagine the consequence of a _plan_. But around the age of nine (generally), kids begin developing the portion of the brain that allows them to plan ahead. Until then, they must rely, not on the future, but on the past, for their rationale. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/96 "2004-11-24T10:04:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > As I told you already, it is the reasonable conclusion that the young children were thinking solely with the “reptilian” portion of the brain. It is reasonable because that is all they have that is fully developed. What they had available to them was their olfactory cortex, their amygdala, and their hippocampus. You mentioned earlier that children and teenagers are able to use their amygdalas for one task that adults perform with their frontal lobes. Why not this task too? I don’t know what kind of eight year olds you’ve met, but my relatives at that age had no trouble comprehending simple cause and effect relationships like this one. You’re underestimating the flexibility of the human brain. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/97 "2004-11-24T11:27:47Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > You mentioned earlier that children and teenagers are able to use their amygdalas for one task that adults perform with their frontal lobes. Why not this task too? Indeed. In fact, that’s what I said. They are thinking with their limbic system (medial temporal lobe). It’s what they have to think _with_. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what kind of eight year olds you’ve met, but my relatives at that age had no trouble comprehending simple cause and effect relationships like this one. You’re underestimating the flexibility of the human brain. You’re underestimating the task. As I said, young children understand past cause and effect, but not future cause and effect — that is, they understand rules, but they don’t understand plans. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/98 "2004-11-24T11:34:23Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > It’s by Chris Van Allsburg who wrote … and The Z Was Zapped (the coolest alphabet book I have ever seen). Enlarge your horizons! The coolest alphabet book the world has ever seen is [The Gashlycrumb Tinies](http://www.wishville.co.uk/gorey/) by Edward Gorey. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/99 "2004-11-24T11:44:20Z")
**Liberal** , I’d still like to know what kind of experience you’ve had with kids or what kind of experience you have studying the brain. You seem to be basing your conclusions on the cited studies of the adolescent brain and your opinion of what is possible for it to do. In fact, the PBS link says And I quote… > [@](#): > > However, **knowing more about the structure of the brain does not necessarily tell us more about the function of the brain.** It is a good hypothesis that if a particular structure is still immature, the functions it governs will show immaturity. Thus, there is fairly widespread agreement that adolescents take more risks at least partly because they have an immature frontal cortex, because this is the area of the brain that takes a second look at something and reasons about a particular behavior. **However, moving from structure to function, deciding what behavior is caused by what part of the brain is much more complicated**. Bolding mine. Also, your cites are discussing the adolescent brain and what changes during and after puberty. We’re discussing children here. **Gaudere** and **Hentor the Barbarian** have already questioned your grasp of the marshmallow study. Do you have anything else. You seem to be jumping from A to Z without looking at what comes between. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894/100 "2004-11-24T11:44:22Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Do you mean to tell me that you would not endorse telling a 3 year old that Santa exists? How about a 5 year old? No, we’re saying that we shouldn’t crush independent, critical thinking when it arises. Surely once a kid has figured out that Santa Claus is bullshit he or she should not be compelled to return to the fantasy. Speaking for myself, when I found out my parents were lying to me about Santa Claus I largely stopped trusting them about anything. And that, more than anything, included their attempts to indoctrinate me about religion. Thank you, folks, for raising a skeptic against your will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-polar-express-sends-a-bad-message-to-children-spoilers/275894.md?page=6)