I’m with the people who were incredulous that the OP (and others who have toasted the sentiment) proposes that this movie sends some powerful message that will ultimately suppress critical thinking and curiosity of the mind.
I saw it, with my offspring, because we have owned the book since it was given to him as an infant. I agreed with the reviewers who thought the animation was creepy, but I liked the story and was okay with the liberties they took. It was a considerably more appropriate movie for my wee one than the Incredibles, incidentally. The Incredibles might be a far better movie on a number of levels, but my son is too young/sensitive for the violence in it.
Believe me, kids are curious, and inquisitive, and doubtful, and questioning. It’s their nature. Spend five minutes with one. I know there are parents who try to suppress this when it comes to their religious faith, and some childhood experiences may possibly discourage this natural tendency to question, but I don’t believe Polar Express–or any movie that merely serves as a few hours of entertainment–is going to play a large role in that. I think it makes sense for parents (and society) to pay some attention to the messages that the media sends or reinforces, but I don’t think you could persuade me that The Polar Express is a big part of an ongoing problem with “doubt.”
Which would be why Polar Express is rated G and Incredibles is rated PG. Parental Guidance, and all, though the values put forth in many G-rated movies (ie: the horrifying lengths the starlets in Disney animations go to in order to land “a MAY-an-n-n-n!”) force responsible parents to not automatically assume that the G means it’s something you’d want your kids to see.
On the other hand, I have no problems with kids believing in Santa Claus. He is a good role model whose selfless giving can be emulated by kids when they get just a wee bit older and can understand that they can be little Santa Clauses, too. The way their eyes light up as they help do the shopping for kids who are less fortunate is priceless.
Once in awhile? I wouldn’t sound so despairing, I think this happens. Even more often if you think about children’s entertainment more broadly. In TV, The Magic Schoolbus celebrates learning about science (and is still being played on some public TV stations). Of course, they have that gambit about the schoolbus being magic (yipes) but the science it teaches is complex and real. Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius celebrates a really smart kid figuring things out and getting into some wild scrapes because of it. Recent movie examples: Agent Cody Banks and Spy Kids both involved kids outsmarting grownups by using their smarts (gadgets, too, but intelligence counted).
A lot of kids movies are just silly, escapist fluff, but there’s stuff out there that celebrates the life of the mind.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I agree with the sentiment that Diogenes is expressing. I do think that critical thinking is not often celebrated in pop culture, whereas blind faith is. Yet my favorite films include Field of Dreams and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Whoops! I think this example is more indicative of the problematic depiction of intelligence than the celebration of it. Neutron is in fact a genius, but he is generally disliked. Who are his friends (a boy with a fixation on a superhero and a fat kid with a strange love of llamas)? He is generally characterized by others as coming up with creations that don’t work. Even the other smartest kid calls him “Nerdtron,” but she can be smart because she is a pretty blond girl. I would hardly say that his intelligence is celebrated.
Neither of these films, in my opinion, has much to do with intelligence. Even so, in both cases, the protagonist-children ultimately need to be rescued by adults. Further, in Spy Kids, isn’t Junie supposed to be the intelligent one? Yet he is also the fat, weak and anxious one, whereas his sister is the action-oriented problem solver. I could be remembering that wrong, but neither of these films celebrate intelligence in any meaningful way, nor do they really pertain to the issue of films frowning on healthy skepticism.
On the other hand, I do understand that films are about fantasy, and that it is often more fun to think about things that aren’t or can’t be, rather than about things that are. Suspension of disbelief is almost essential to enjoying nearly any film. Yet, there is a difference between enjoying fantasy and dissuading others from being a skeptic.
By the way, Liberal, you are absolutely wrong, despite your effort to redefine the word “rational” as meaning the completion of the growth of the frontal lobe. Children are quite capable of rational thought before age 9. And this:
Those movies aren’t perfect examples, true enough. What I was responding to was Dio’s lament that children’s movie didn’t celebrate the life of the mind. He said he wished they did that once in a while, which sounded like a pretty hopeless assessment of children’s movies to me. I didn’t argue it well. Maybe the better argument to make was that a parent can find sufficient emphasis on intellectualism and critical thinking via books and some educational children’s television (not to mention the most important tool of all, conversation, but I think that’s been a given throughout this thread). Perhaps that would make it easier for parents to tolerate the flaws of the fun, imaginative, magical movies their children may occasionally view.
Unlike a number of people commenting, I did see the Polar Express, and had no concerns about an anti-intellectual message being conveyed to my child or to other children who see it.
Yeah, I was aware of the ratings. Another poster in this thread expressed incredulity that anyone would waste money on the Polar Express when the The Incredibles was out. I was just explaining that many parents of young children might easily make that choice.
Dead on, Diogenes. It’s one of the reasons my kids won’t be seeing “Polar Express” – although I have to admit that the crappy animation and high glurge factor contributed as well.
We’ll stick to more wholesome, uplifting fare like Spongebob, thank you … .
And to everyone saying “lighten up, it’s just a kid’s movie” … well, that level of importance can be attached to most day-to-day parenting decisions. Being a good parent isn’t about doing one or two big things right, it’s about doing thousands of little things right, over and over again, consistently, down through the years. One bad movie won’t make much of a difference, just like one Happy Meal won’t. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to keep the bad movies and the Happy Meals to a minimum … .
Oh, and lest we be encouraged of being curmudgeons, both our kids still believe in Santa Claus. And when they figure out on their own that he’s not real, we plan to explain that he’s a fun way to personify the spirit of Christmas generousity – and that growing up means that you get to play Santa Claus so the game can continue.
This is pretty much how we handle all supernatural traditions – just because something isn’t real doesn’t mean that it can’t be fun, or a good story, or enlightening. When we tell our kids Bible stories or Greek myths, we explain that they’re not literally true, but that they’re good stories nonetheless … .
As atheist parents we feel that it’s not enough to tell our kids that the supernatural doesn’t exist. We also need to provide a framework for understanding why the supernatural can be so compelling.
(BTW, the new Scooby Doo has returned to the original “it’s just a guy in a mask” formula, so all is not lost … .)
FTR, I took my daughter to both The Incredibles and the Spongebob movie as well (out of which she liked Spongebob the best). If Polar Express had not been showing at the IMAX I probably wouldn’t have gone. I’m just a sucker for the IMAX 3D format. I’ve seen Santa Claus Vs. the Snowman like three times. over the past three Christmases.
I’ve done no such thing. Don’t be so desperate as to make stuff up. It is a combination of brain activities peculiar to pre-adolescence and puberty, the frontal lobe being one part. I’ve given my sources, and I stand by what I said.
Only on the most primitive level. And you don’t even use any qualifiers, so I could cite all sorts of examples where you’re wrong. But generally, when given candy and told that if they wait five minutes, they can have twice as much candy, eight-year-old kids will eat what’s in front of them now, whereas ten-year-old kids will wait to get twice as much. The younger children cannot effectively weigh the rewards and consequences of waiting versus eating now.
It is no different than forcing a child who is having problems with arithmetic to go ahead and study algebra.
Lib, the Stanford “Marshmallow Study” (which is what I assume you are referring to) was performed on four-year-olds and 1/3 of them were able to wait 15-20 minutes. http://www.sybervision.com/Discipline/marshmallow.htm I think your estimation of stages of child development is a bit off.
I just want to pop in and say that I felt the same way about the goddamn Little Mermaid. That movie taught little girls that you can be a goddamn princess and have everything you want and be loved by everyone around you and it all means nothing if you don’t have a MAN to make you a real person. Snort.
I know this may not mean a lot to you, liberal as it is entirely anecdotal, but a lot of the kids I deal with (my daughter and her classmates) are entirely capable of rational thought and understanding skepticism and sarcasm. I think both you and the studies you cited sell a fair amount of children short.
Out of curiousity, how often do you deal with children?
Here’s what you said: “Generally, it isn’t even possible for children to think rationally before they’re nine years old.” Your sources came in your second post, and entirely pertain to the persisting development of the brain through adolescence. How this relates to your assertion about the “general” impossibility of rational thought before age 9 is wholly unclear. Do you have sources for what you originally said? (By the way, I entirely agree with the assertion that further development of the brain occurs through adolescence, and perhaps even into the early 20’s for some).
I am a clinical psychologist, specializing in children and in developmental psychopathology. My dissertation work involved the use of a Kohlberg-based moral development intervention for adolescents. What you are doing is talking completely out of the top of your hat, based on a loose grasp of Piagetian developmental tasks and a whole lot of misunderstanding. You have in fact conflated three concepts so far. Please don’t add any more to your load - you may throw your back out.
Another ridiculous analogy for the archives. It is not child abuse to encourage critical thinking or skepticism in children. In fact, exposure to reasoning one stage above a child’s present level has been shown to lead to elevations in moral development. Would you be abusive or merely mean-spirited if you told a child that the taller, skinnier vessel did not actually hold a greater amount of fluid than the shorter, fatter one?
Perhaps if you wish to continue doing this, we should move it from this venue to another. If so, however, I will insist that you begin defining your terms and avoid conflating several concepts.
Some of these posts here are pretty heavy. I’ll stick to what I think of the movie.
I can see the arguement for those saying the movie encourages a mindset of conformity to set beliefs, however I got a different impression from the movie. The child was a doubter, and the reason the train showed up was to encourage investigation on the matter of Claus’ existence. Otherwise the child would never have known for sure (until of course he grew up). So I see the movie in a way arguing for investigation and curiosity.
Now as to the result of the investigation, it is of course a straight and upright lie. Santa Claus does not exist, and no Steve Tyler Elves are rocking in the North Pole.
Regarding this, I think that the Santa Claus myth is an encouraging one for children. Perhaps it is not for all, but I for one think that if the most traumatic experiance a child has in his life is learning of the non-existence of Santa Claus, then he’s lived a pretty good life!
If you tell an adult male he can buy that new video game / car / belt sander today with his credit card and pay interest, or he can save up his money and buy it later with cash, will he always choose to buy it later and save a few bucks? If he chooses to buy it today, does that make him immature or irrational, or does it just mean he’s willing to give something up for convenience?
I think your example says more about kids’ patience and perception of time than their ability to reason.
I would direct anyone who considers young people incapable of reason to pick up a copy of Lewis Carroll’s Symbolic Logic, an introductory textbook intended for Victorian ten-year-olds.
Kids are naturally capable of reason – they’re just rarely encouraged to learn it or exercise it.
This is exactly why I had a problem with that damn Marshmallow Study thing. It assumed that all kids, without question, would desire two marshmallows instead of one. But what if the kid wasn’t all that hungry? What if they didn’t care about having more, but only wanted it now? Conservancy doesn’t always win out over convenience. Considering that adults happily pay credit card interest, pay more for attendant-pumped gas, and pay several dollars to have their gifts wrapped at the mall instead of taking them home and doing it for pennies, I don’t think we should be pointing fingers at kids and saying they’re irrational for choosing not to wait.
Sorry for getting this thread off track. I just really hate that study.
That isn’t the study that I had seen, but it looks like an early precursor study (done in the 60s). What you cited contrasts four-year-olds with adults.
I agree with you except that time perception and comprehension of consequence are critical aspects of any applied reasoning. I think we’re all equivocating here with respect to what “rational” means. I don’t mean to say that kids can’t do long division. What I’m saying is that they cannot properly contextualize critical elements of adult reasoning. As I said before, they are not miniature adults. Their brains are growing (and therefore changing) at a dizzying rate. Reason comes from the brain.
Some adults are impatient. Are they, therefore, also incapable of reasoning?
Their bodies are changing too, and walking is done with the body. Does that mean kids can’t walk? Of course not. Some kids can even walk faster than some adults.
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.
First, their bodies are not changing on the scale of their brains, with the exception of boys in puberty — at which time, walking can be quite a problem. Their brains have not yet adjusted to the new lengths of legs and arms. Second, the brain is one organ of the body. 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.