"The Polar Express" sends a bad message to children (spoilers)

[ambushed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There are platitudes throughout about how important it is to “believe.” At one point the Tom Hanks conductor character says, “Seeing is believing, but sometimes the things that are the most real are the things you can’t see.”

WTF, no they aren’t. What is that even supposed to mean?

@Blake

It is supposed to mean that not all of reality is objective. A point that very few philosophers or scientists would dispute. Frankly I’m surprised that no one has challenged that point yet… (further ponderous blather omitted} …

It doesn’t mean anything of the kind. If the English language makes any sense at all, it can’t mean anything other than that objective reality (i.e., that which is most real) cannot be percieved, which is obviously absurd. Niether your death interpretation nor your saccharine-sentimental interpretation about subjectivity holds up. That which is subjective is less real than that which is objective and is thus seen identically by all, regardless of personal philosophies or beliefs or cultural baggage.

I agree with Diogenes and disagree with you, Blake.

[ambushed]

@Blake

Nonsense. “Not everything that is real can be seen” is not a complex philosophical point to the average 6yo.

I understand how important it is for a anti-critical-thinking sophist to base arguments on false pretenses, but the movie never said: “Not everything that is real can be seen”! It said: “…sometimes the things that are the most real are the things you can’t see.”

That is a lie, a sickly-sweet fantasy. Just like Santa Claus. Just like your arguments.

[Liberal]

@Harborwolf

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.

I don’t think you should worry about the man; worry about the argument.

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…

Bolding mine.

You quoted it, all right. But you emboldened the irrelevant parts. Here is what is relevant from the quote to what we are discussing here.

“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.”

Do you or do you not understand that development of the frontal lobe, where reasoning happens, is ongoing throughout childhood and past adolescence?

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.

I did not reference the marshmallow study. They did. It is not the case that there has been no study since the 1960s, which is when that study took place.

Do you have anything else. You seem to be jumping from A to Z without looking at what comes between.

I have laid out a cogent, consistent, and coherent case supporting my opinions. It is your questions and comments that are transitory and volatile.

[Harborwolf]

@Liberal

You quoted it, all right. But you emboldened the irrelevant parts. Here is what is relevant from the quote to what we are discussing here.

How is the part I that I bolded irrelevant? You are basing your conclusions on a hypothesis and seem to be claiming these studies as iron clad fact.

To repeat

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.

That these studies are fact seems to be central to your argument. If even those involved in the study aren’t sure, how can you be?

Like I said, you are taking their studies, running it through your own filter, and deciding that it is fact. From A to Z with no other letters

[Liberal]

@Harborwolf

How is the part I that I bolded irrelevant?

Oy. Because the assertion that I made (repeatedly) was that the reasoning area of the brain is undeveloped in children. The quote you posted said exactly that, but you highlighted something else.

You are basing your conclusions on a hypothesis and seem to be claiming these studies as iron clad fact.

Every empirical conclusion is based ultimately on an hypothesis. That’s how the scientific method works: observe, hypothesize, predict, test, conclude, repeat. You seem to be claiming that because the conclusions of tests don’t match your own hypothesis, they must be mistaken.

To repeat

Are you even reading what you’re quoting? Aside from the part that you’re ignoring proving my point, even the part you’re highlighting says only that deciding what behavior is caused by what part of the brain is more complicated than deciding what part of the brain is activated by what behavior. After all, that’s easy. They hook up electrodes and watch the red and blue patches of color. When an adult looks at a facial expression, his frontal lobe (seat of reasoning) picture turns red. When a child looks at a facial expression, his amygdala (seat of emotion) picture turns red. The child’s brain is making tens of thousands of new neural connections per second, and his frontal lobe (seat of reasoning) is not yet developed.

That these studies are fact seems to be central to your argument. If even those involved in the study aren’t sure, how can you be?

Sure about what? If you can find even one study (after 1920, and not including anything by Mengele) that says that children’s frontal lobes are fully functioning OR one study (with the aforementioned restrictions) stating that the frontal cortex is not the seat of reasoning and problem solving, I’m open to having a look at it.

Like I said, you are taking their studies, running it through your own filter, and deciding that it is fact. From A to Z with no other letters

You’re just making up stuff and blathering in metaphors. Produce one or both of the two cites I requested.

[Harborwolf]

I’ll state this plainly so you won’t have to wade through anymore blather. The articles you cited said essentially that their findings may explain why some adolescents have a lack of reasoning and are gangly.

You are saying that the studies do explain why all children have a lack of reasoning and therefor a lack of skepticism.

The part I bolded even uses the term hypothesis. They are still testing and seem unwilling to make the statements that you are throwing around here. You are stretching their studies quite a bit.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Liberal, you really are not in the ballpark with this one. You are citing student review papers as evidence, claiming that children think with their mid-brain or perhaps even their hind brain, and apparently having not a clue what you are reading. It really isn’t even worth discussing with you. Just because brain structures are not fully developed does not mean that they are not used. Just because temporal lobe structures are more activated in children and adolescents than adults on some tasks does not mean that they are not using their frontal lobes. And for gods sake, functionality does not shift from one portion of the brain to another! People do not think with their limbic system. You would be correct if you would say that portions of the brain more involved in emotions are particularly active in adolescents, but everybody knows this anyway.

At this point, it is a fairly pathetic display. Stop digging, man. Or at least stop mucking up this thread with incorrect and erroneous distraction after distraction. I would be happy to educate you about brain physiology or function, or about children’s development, but take it somewhere else.

[Liberal]

Thank you, but I do not need you to teach me your lies. If you cannot debate without lies, misrepresentations, evasions, and strawmen, you really should stay out of debates. Anyone can see, for example that what you said…

“You are saying that the studies *do * explain why *all * children have a lack of reasoning and therefor [sic] a lack of skepticism.” [Emphasis yours.]

…is not what I actually said…

“‘Generally’ means that there can be exceptions, but in this case, they are rare.”

You said I said all, and in fact, I said there can be exceptions.

Your refusal to deal with what is, frankly, common knowledge, your semantical tap-dancing intended to dodge my challenges, and your sheer inability to present a coherent case on your own behalf belies whatever you think you might know about this topic. So far as I can tell, you have not yet understood what skepticism itself is. And honestly, your rude and condescending tone, as well as your ad hominem attacks, add nothing to your argument.

Do not tell me where to take anything. I will debate what I see fit to debate within the rules of the board and the generally accepted standards of debate. I have invited you to show me where I am wrong, and if I am wrong, I will admit my error. I now give you a new challenge, which is to do the same.

[dotchan]

Back to the OP. (Haven’t watched the movie, BTW.)

I’m feeling kind of conflicted about this myself. I want to believe - in God, society, humanity, decency - whatever. I also see, plain as the nose on my face, that reality simply doesn’t work this way. (It was a very disillusioning experience to find out. I almost stopped interacting with the real world.)

So, is it better to believe, despite signs that maybe my beliefs might not be working? Or is it better to doubt everything, because obviously the world has gone to hell in a handbasket?

And what in the world do I tell my kids in the event that I ever have them? I don’t want to keep them up at night worrying about the real monsters that lurk in the shadows, but I don’t want to lie to them, either.

I don’t think a movie’s going to give a satisfying answer.

[SCSimmons]

@Smartass

Nonetheless, I DO believe in Santa Claus. I would not be spending all this money on Xmas gifts for my kids if I did not.

Nah. If you really believed in Santa Claus, you wouldn’t buy any gifts for your kids. And when the stockings were empty on Christmas morning, you’d turn toward the North Pole, shaking your fist and screaming, "You fat red-suited S.O.B.! You skipped our house again!

[Ms2001]

@Liberal

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.

Yes. You seriously don’t see the contradiction in your argument here? Perhaps you could list for us exactly which tasks the limbic system can and cannot take over from other parts of the brain, since that’s what you’re essentially claiming to know.

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.

And as I said, I’ve spent time with kids around that age (as well as having been one myself at one time), and that leads me to the conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Third graders can understand symbolic logic (basic programming and algebra) as well as real-world rules of behavior - IF you do this, THEN this will result.

[Liberal]

@Mr2001

Yes. You seriously don’t see the contradiction in your argument here? Perhaps you could list for us exactly which tasks the limbic system can and cannot take over from other parts of the brain, since that’s what you’re essentially claiming to know.

I’ve already given the links to back my claims. I’m only claiming what I’ve read. That’s why I say, show me alternate information and I’ll look at it.

And it isn’t a matter of taking over; it’s a matter of that’s all there is. The frontal lobe of children is a super-fast growing mass of unconnected tissues and axonal membranes that are establishing synaptic connections at incredible rates. But it is a process that takes a long time.

And as I said, I’ve spent time with kids around that age (as well as having been one myself at one time), and that leads me to the conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Third graders can understand symbolic logic (basic programming and algebra) as well as real-world rules of behavior - IF you do this, THEN this will result.

Some can understand symbolic logic — that’s because symbolic logic has rules. What they cannot understand is future plans. You’re talking hemispheres and I’m talking lobes.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

And as I said, I’ve spent time with kids around that age (as well as having been one myself at one time), and that leads me to the conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Third graders can understand symbolic logic (basic programming and algebra) as well as real-world rules of behavior - IF you do this, THEN this will result.

Are you saying that all third graders can understand symbolic logic? Liberal isn’t denying that some can, and, seeing as I experienced first hand first year university students having problems with simple symbolic logic tasks in Java programming tasks, I find it hard to believe that you think all third graders can understand symbolic logic.

[Ms2001]

@Liberal

And it isn’t a matter of taking over; it’s a matter of that’s all there is.

I must really not be explaining myself very well, because I’ve asked this many times and still not gotten an answer.

You say the limbic system can perform a task, in children, that is performed by the frontal lobe in adults. I call that “taking over”; you can call it what you want. I want to know why you think that can happen with one task (recognizing facial expressions) but not another (reasoning). So far, I’m not seeing where you or your cites have addressed it. (Hint: “Their brains are changing/undeveloped” does not answer the question.)

Perhaps this deserves a thread of its own.

@+MDI

Are you saying that all third graders can understand symbolic logic?

No, only that their brains (with few exceptions) have the capacity to understand it if they’re taught. Much like all third graders can’t necessarily read–reading must be taught–but they have the capacity for reading.

[Harborwolf]

@Liberal

Thank you, but I do not need you to teach me your lies. If you cannot debate without lies, misrepresentations, evasions, and strawmen, you really should stay out of debates. Anyone can see, for example that what you said…

“You are saying that the studies *do * explain why *all * children have a lack of reasoning and therefor [sic] a lack of skepticism.” [Emphasis yours.]

…is not what I actually said…

“‘Generally’ means that there can be exceptions, but in this case, they are rare.”

You said I said all, and in fact, I said there can be exceptions.

Your refusal to deal with what is, frankly, common knowledge, your semantical tap-dancing intended to dodge my challenges, and your sheer inability to present a coherent case on your own behalf belies whatever you think you might know about this topic. So far as I can tell, you have not yet understood what skepticism itself is. And honestly, your rude and condescending tone, as well as your ad hominem attacks, add nothing to your argument.

Do not tell me where to take anything. I will debate what I see fit to debate within the rules of the board and the generally accepted standards of debate. I have invited you to show me where I am wrong, and if I am wrong, I will admit my error. I now give you a new challenge, which is to do the same.

Now this is the last post I’m going to make in this thread. Hentor is far more qualified than I to argue these points. I just want to clear a few things first.

I apologize for missing your “generally” statement and the qualifier that followed about exceptions being rare. It doesn’t change the fact that you are stretching the hypothesis farther than the people involved are going. The cites you give almost across the board say that the studies may mean that adolescents are less rational than adults. It says nothing about being unable to think rationally. It says nothing about exceptions being rare. What you are reading into these studies simply is not there.

I don’t need to find cites to prove my argument. What I’m saying is in the cites you provided.

What lies? What ad hominem attacks? What rude and condescending tone? I honestly think that you are reading far more into my statements than I am putting into them. As for telling you where take something, I’m not going to. I don’t even know where you’re going.

[Larry_Mudd]

@+MDI

I experienced first hand first year university students having problems with simple symbolic logic tasks in Java programming tasks, I find it hard to believe that you think all third graders can understand symbolic logic.

I’ve taught two kids under the age of ten formal logic, using the Lewis Carroll text I mentioned above. The first one was a girlfriend’s daughter, around eight or nine years old. She was exceptionally bright – but only because she’d never been condescended to in her entire life. The second one was a friend’s son, whose intelligence was remarkable only by virtue of its sheer average-ness, who was attending a Scientology school and having his head filled with a bunch of nonsense.

Carroll’s teaching method starts out using tiddly-wink like markers on a simple boolean grid, then introduces an isomorphic notation to replace the “game pieces.” It relies heavily on very amusing examples of syllogisms to keep it interesting.

Neither of the children I taught had any difficulty picking it up – in fact, I think it’s safe to say that it was easier for them than it was for me at the age of twenty. Children at that age can learn very complex things with astonishing ease – it’s how we develop naturally. The same developmental stages that make language acquisition a snap for wee ones and a difficult labour for adults apply to critical thinking.

If these skills are ignored early in life, it’s likely that the person will never be able to manage critical thought with anything like natural ease.

The position that children are naturally unable to apply reason is contrary to the experience of anyone who operates from the position that they are perfectly capable of it, and it’s baffling.

@Liberal

Attempting to make them into critical thinking adults while their brains are still immature is, as far as I’m concerned, a form of child abuse.

As a thought experiment, Lib, imagine a society in which the received wisdom is that children below the age of maturity are incapable of lifting. As a consequence of this, they are never given anything to lift – no toys heavier than nerf toys, no book-bags, nothing. In fact, whenever they make the natural attempt to lift something, their parents discourage them. “You’re not old enough to lift anything. If you want something up off the ground, that’s what I’m here for.”

In such a society, there will be a demonstrable lack of upper body strength in young people. Of course they can’t swing a bat – they’re children. What, you’re letting that seven-year-old to help bring in the groceries? That’s tantamount to child abuse!

Of course, our hypothetical society is going to populated weak adults, too. By the time they’re allowed start exercising their atrophied muscles, they’re pitifully stunted creatures, and golly, lifting is hard. Such a population would be trivially easy to control.

[Liberal]

@Mr2001

You say the limbic system can perform a task, in children, that is performed by the frontal lobe in adults. I call that “taking over”; you can call it what you want. I want to know why you think that can happen with one task (recognizing facial expressions) but not another (reasoning).

I don’t. In fact, I believe I said that that’s how it happens generally because that’s all they have. The frontal lobe is not yet sufficiently available, and so they use what they have. What it means in practical terms is that their decisions are less rational and more emotional. An adult can do both — he can discern a facial expression of, say, terror because he can analyze the facial musculature; on the other hand, he can watch a movie and, in a state of suspended disbelieve, can react emotionally to the same expression. Children recognize a sad or happy face because they remember (hippocampus) circumstances in which those expressions were on faces they knew. They are working on memories of emotions only. Adults can do it either way. And in general, that’s how children do their quasi-reasoning. While they have some minimal reasoning capacity (more and more as each year goes by), the must rely on contextualizing the new things they learn with the experiences they’ve had. Whether this specific thing is or is not in some of the cites, it merely stands to reason. We’re given that they don’t have the rational brain yet developed and that their limbic system becomes active when they analyze faces. We must reason from there.

[Liberal]

@Harborwolf

What lies? What ad hominem attacks? What rude and condescending tone? I honestly think that you are reading far more into my statements than I am putting into them. As for telling you where take something, I’m not going to. I don’t even know where you’re going.

Are you and Hentor the same poster? If not, you’ve confused yourself with someone else.

[Liberal]

@Larry Mudd

I’ve taught two kids under the age of ten formal logic, using the Lewis Carroll text I mentioned above. The first one was a girlfriend’s daughter, around eight or nine years old. She was exceptionally bright – but only because she’d never been condescended to in her entire life. The second one was a friend’s son, whose intelligence was remarkable only by virtue of its sheer average-ness, who was attending a Scientology school and having his head filled with a bunch of nonsense.

Carroll’s teaching method starts out using tiddly-wink like markers on a simple boolean grid, then introduces an isomorphic notation to replace the “game pieces.” It relies heavily on very amusing examples of syllogisms to keep it interesting.

Neither of the children I taught had any difficulty picking it up – in fact, I think it’s safe to say that it was easier for them than it was for me at the age of twenty. Children at that age can learn very complex things with astonishing ease – it’s how we develop naturally. The same developmental stages that make language acquisition a snap for wee ones and a difficult labour for adults apply to critical thinking.

If these skills are ignored early in life, it’s likely that the person will never be able to manage critical thought with anything like natural ease.

The position that children are naturally unable to apply reason is contrary to the experience of anyone who operates from the position that they are perfectly capable of it, and it’s baffling.

As a thought experiment, Lib, imagine a society in which the received wisdom is that children below the age of maturity are incapable of lifting. As a consequence of this, they are never given anything to lift – no toys heavier than nerf toys, no book-bags, nothing. In fact, whenever they make the natural attempt to lift something, their parents discourage them. “You’re not old enough to lift anything. If you want something up off the ground, that’s what I’m here for.”

In such a society, there will be a demonstrable lack of upper body strength in young people. Of course they can’t swing a bat – they’re children. What, you’re letting that seven-year-old to help bring in the groceries? That’s tantamount to child abuse!

Of course, our hypothetical society is going to populated weak adults, too. By the time they’re allowed start exercising their atrophied muscles, they’re pitifully stunted creatures, and golly, lifting is hard. Such a population would be trivially easy to control.

I think it is a mistake to extrapolate an assertion into its most extreme possible interpretation and then attack it. In saying that children should not be forced to think like adults, I did not say (and did not mean to imply) that they cannot or should not be trained over time to think like adults. They should be given whatever they can handle. My problem — and I thought this was clear from the context — is with treating them like miniature adults, expecting them to rationalize about such things as God (or even Santa Claus) in the same way an adult does without benefit of an adult brain. It’s okay to let a seven-year-old help carry the groceries. But do you think it’s okay to put a seven-year-old through Marine boot camp?

[Brutus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

…Now I know this isn’t the first movie to present this bankrupt message to kids but it’s the first time I was really struck by how wrong it is. Kids should never be told to “just believe.” They should be told not to believe without proof. They should be told to ask every question, examine every belief, and draw rational conclusions.

Come now. Imagine the following conversation you will have with your spawnling(s) in a few years:

Dad, I am going to knock off a liquor store.

Son, you shouldn’t do that.

But Dad, the odds are well against me being caught, much less successfully prosecuted, so I am going to make some easy money and get some Mad Dog.

Son, it is wrong to rob liquor stores.

How so, Pops? Statitisics support my pro-robbery position. All you offer is vague appeals to some nebulous concepts.

It isn’t right to take from others.

So?

<Sigh> Get me some Boones Farm while your out.

Our concept of morality sort of hinges on ‘just believing’ that some stuff is wrong. Sure, we have the ‘punishment/reward’ to deal with those who don’t, but imagine how interesting things would be if nobody ‘just believed’ that certain acts were wrong, and instead tried to get away with whatever met their personal punishment/reward criteria.

‘Just believing’ in and of itself isn’t neccesarily a bad thing, and when it is in regards to a kid and ol’ Grandfather Frost, your concerns are misplaced.

@Blalron

The election results earlier this month clearly show that the American Public has difficulty understanding how to think critically. Right on the mark (unfortunately). :eek:

They have a name for your disorder. ‘Post Election Stress Disorder’; you should look into getting some help for it. Quickly.