My Four-Year-Old Son Plays Grand Theft Auto

[LittleFuzzy]

As Zig asked, what harm do you see as having come to the child. Not what might have come.

Harm right now? Apparently none. The thing is saying "it's just a game" doesn't go as far with a 4 y/o as it does with someone older. Real life and "games" are a lot closer together. So yeah, I'd be worried about some small degree of internalization, from the reaction to accidentally running over a woman, grabbing parked cars *least worrisome* and taking those emergency vehicles when their drivers were out of them.The game's interaction is not just "I'm a firefighter" but "I can go out and fight fires now." And it's not like the kid wasn't engaging in any violent behavior in the game. He WAS doing Vigilante missions. Do I think the child is warped for the rest of his life? No, of course not, but there is the possibility that the game can affect him negatively, particularly if he plays it more than this one time with his father watching. Along that same vein I seem to recall that a child that age is still in the range where you have to be worried about how the TV interacts with a young child's need for stimulation.

[Catgrrl]

LOL, I wonder what does more damage though....playing the game yourself or watching your dad scream and cuss at the screen while he's playing.

Sorry, it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but my mind goes off on a tangent quite often.

[littlelolligagged]

Well, kittycat, while they will learn profanity once they hit kindergarten anyway, it's generally nice for mommy and daddy to avoid it whenever possible.

The good news is that, after the kindergarten trying out the new words you learned, then mommy and daddy get a few years reprieve.

[Catgrrl]

hehe, ya, I've really got to curb my language. Especially when in the car.

Luckily hubby isn't as bad about yelling at the TV as I am. But since I don't have much time yet to get into console games she is safe from my tirades for the moment.

[GGT]

None of the other parents in this thread seem to agree with your position, either, or at least the reasoning behind it.

Also to Ziggy and Illusions: I meant when it's theoretical, "other peoples' kids" vs your own, or children in your charge like being a teacher, you may change your mind about what's an innocent thing, or something to avoid. Only lolli and OG were the other parents posting. Too bad we didn't have teachers or day care workers, or other parents talking about this, too. Oh well.

It's probably related to the group of folks in this forum, predominantly gamers. I can almost guarantee if this was a parenting forum, there'd be more sharing my opinion. ASAIK Pediatric organizations recommend against 4 year olds playing games like GTA, as well as tv shows/movies not rated G, with legitimate reasons behind limiting "virtual violence" exposure. And gamers could at least admit the addictive nature of video games.....often hard enough for adults to control impulses to play for hours on end, let alone a little kid.

IMO toddlers should be riding trikes ("real driving"), learning how to share toys in the sand box ("real altruism"), putting Legos together ("real building"), or visiting a fire house ("real role models"). Not playing GTA or other adult virtual games. It's not an outrageous opinion that just popped into my head.

[Nessus]

It's inane reasoning stemming from ignorance and hysteria. Of course a "parenting forum" would have people agreeing with you, they're just as hysteric and ignorant.

[GGT]

Too fucking funny.

You want to take caring for and protecting young children and make it the equivalent of how teens are supposed to be supervised?

What you quoted didn't say that at all.

Thanks, OG.

I sat here and thought about answering more, and even typed quite a bit, but finally I decided that I see no particular need to disabuse you of your illusions. There's absolutely no point.

And what's the name for that tactic? Where anyone who disagrees has "illusions"?

[GGT]

It's inane reasoning stemming from ignorance and hysteria. Of course a "parenting forum" would have people agreeing with you, they're just as hysteric and ignorant.

Now it's ignorance and hysteria, because I don't think it's wise for a FOUR YEAR OLD to play GTA?

So what age do you think might be too young for games like that?

[littlelolligagged]

And what's the name for that tactic? Where anyone who disagrees has "illusions"?

I think everyone here would call it sensible.

[Illusions]

Now it's ignorance and hysteria, because I don't think it's wise for a FOUR YEAR OLD to play GTA?

No, we think its ignorant when you lack the ability to distinguish between part of a game, and the whole game. Driving around in GTA does not have to be violent unless you purposefully approach driving in a violent manner. I doubt sitting with your child and allowing them to just drive around in GTA would lead them to become violent as you seem to imply. It would be no more violent than a realistic driving simulator.

[GGT]

And I think you underestimate what a precocious 4 year old can do after that.....they learn fast how to turn things on when the house is asleep or parents are distracted. They can't read, but understand pictures and symbols before they're 2. Some can even crack safety features at a young age.

What I'm not understanding is the level of umbrage to my opinion, or why everyone's so eager to say it's fine for a 4 yr old to play (even parts) of GTA---no big deal, no harm no foul! Anyone care to explain that?

[Ominous Gamer]

Too bad we didn't have teachers or day care workers, or other parents talking about this, too. Oh well.

This is what I went to college for, and Brandy has run a licensed (what a bitch!) daycare out of the rear room for a couple of months now.

it's fine for a 4 yr old to play (even parts) of GTA---no big deal, no harm no foul! Anyone care to explain that?

flashback!

Me thinks GGT doesn't understand how GTA works.
Yes, in GTA you can murder people, run people over, blow them up. Yes you can have sex with whores for money, then run them over to get your money back. But you have to know such events exist. You have to be of an age that understands that if you take X sized van to a person dressed as Y, then park in an alley that looks like z, the resulting rocking of your van means you're having sex.
Does a 4 year old understand that? No. A 4 year old sees a game filled with people that are no more real the baby dolls she plays with. She sees a maze of streets she can hazardly drive a dump truck down until her character gets reset.

This is why I keep asking you what part of the game(s) you find offensive. You're attacking the game as whole, even though a 4 year old would never be able to activate or perform some parts of the game. You hate GTA because its GTA. That makes no sense.

[GGT]

Too bad we didn't have other parents and/or teachers in this thread. You know exactly what I meant, OG. But you still haven't explained why you think GTA is okay for toddlers. Especially since baby dolls, dump trucks or driving games can be geared toward a toddler.

In Brandy's day care, surely she wouldn't think it's just fine to let the 4 year olds play GTA, or parts of it, just because she's supervising. I doubt the parents would agree with that either. Don't you suppose?

[Nessus]

It really is too bad there's no people agreeing with you, isn't it

[Ominous Gamer]

Too bad we didn't have other parents and/or teachers in this thread. You know exactly what I meant, OG.

Sure do, selective poll taking,

But you still haven't explained why you think GTA is okay for toddlers.

I've done so twice now. We're however still waiting for what part of GTA you found offensive.

Especially since baby dolls, dump trucks or driving games can be geared toward a toddler.

And baby dolls, dump trucks, and driving games can be geared towards older kids and adults as well. Ever heard of Twisted Metal, or Chucky? Or seen a child use his dump truck to run something over, or play a driving game backwards just to cause havoc.

Nothing is 1 size fits all.

In Brandy's day care, surely she wouldn't think it's just fine to let the 4 year olds play GTA, or parts of it, just because she's supervising. I doubt the parents would agree with that either. Don't you suppose?

Some games are on lock down due to the range and volume of the children in the room, and some aren't. The SNES is in the backroom, and sometimes some of the kids play Primal Rage. A game about dinosaurs and giant monkeys that once upon a time caused Mortal Kombat level outrage.

[GGT]

No, you just keep saying it's no big deal. Not why you think so, or what lead you to believe so.

I don't mind being a minority opinion here, Nessie. Fuzzy appears to agree, But no one can show me why I should change my view.

Pediatricians, child psychologists, and teachers are where I got my information, and since the "jury is still out" on how those games affect young minds, I'll err on the side of caution. They're not being deprived of games or game-playing if limited to age-appropriate ones. There's something to be said for letting a toddler be a toddler, plenty of time to introduce other adult-oriented stuff in life.

Again, where are you guys coming up with your ideas on this?

[Ominous Gamer]

Not why you think so,

Lets trying coming from this at another angle, but I do believe Ness already explained it this way.

Games like GTA are open ended, the only react to what the player is able to initiate. If a 4 year old doesn't know about sex, the game isn't going to magically start sexing up their character. If the 4 year old doesn't go around shooting shit up, shit isn't going to randomly start shooting up the player. If someone wants to simple walk around Liberty city, the game allows that.
The game allows the player to explore, grow, and evolve at their own pace.

What you're suggesting, keeping children locked into games that restrict their free thought into predefined paths, I consider that bad.
Yes there are open ended games that ain't as controversal as GTA, but that doesn't make GTA the anti-christ of video games. Having to explain to a kid why they can't do something in a game means that game is holding that child back.

[GGT]

What you're suggesting, keeping children locked into games that restrict their free thought into predefined paths, I consider that bad.
Yes there are open ended games that ain't as controversal as GTA, but that doesn't make GTA the anti-christ of video games. Having to explain to a kid why they can't do something in a game means that game is holding that child back.

Oh FFS, now I'm restricting free thought and turning GTA into the anti-christ of games? Get a grip, I suggested no such thing.

Media content comes with ratings for a reason. Parents in general use them as a guidleline for a reason. There's nothing wrong or sinister in that.

The game allows the player to explore, grow, and evolve at their own pace.

There are age-appropriate alternatives that achieve the same goals. That's my point. You still can't explain why a 4 year old should be exposed to parts of GTA

[Ominous Gamer]

Parents in general use them as a guidleline for a reason. There's nothing wrong or sinister in that.

There is actually a lot wrong with that.
This is mainly reserved for another thread, but this is the lazy way out for parenting. Parents that shop via age tags (even as a general rule) are going off of the opinion of another adult, someone they know nothing about (from family to qualifications), in order to raise their own children.
Again, thats bad.

You may enjoy a movie called This Film Is Not Yet Rated

You still can't explain why a 4 year old should be exposed to parts of GTA

You're changing the direction now. You took offense because this child was exposed to GTA. You took offense to any child being exposed to GTA. I've asked you why you took offense, and while you still haven't answered, I did answer you question. Why its OK. A child should always be allowed to openly express themselves. Sometimes thats through open ended worlds without limits (which, thanks to guidelines, E games do not allow), sometimes thats with a blank driveway and 3 colors of chalk. Some children grow up more with a heavy sense of technology, while some children enter school not knowing what youtube is.

Should children not be allowed to watch Sesame Street's Youtube channel because other parts of Youtube might expose them to concepts that you are not ready for them to experience?

[GGT]

I already said I wasn't offended! And that my view stems from Pediatricians and child psychologists expressing caution toward very young children being exposed to certain games/movies/activities. And that I have relied on ratings, as many parents do. There's a plethora of age-appropriate games for toddlers that achieve the same types of problem solving driver games that are FUN without using a game like GTA. That's why it's not on pre-schooler or kindergarten play lists. It's not like there aren't alternatives.

I'm not anti-game or anti-technology for young kids. I'm sure as young tech geeks have children, the kiddie genre will explode with even more new things, and that's a good thing. Some video games are now being used to treat autistic or ADHD kids. But parents still need to make decisions and have a good reason to DO something as well as NOT do something, and monitor how much stimulation (and what kind) young kids are exposed to. Media will still be rated, so parents can have that tool.

It's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. A 4 yr old who's played GTA with daddy will naturally want to find new levels in that game, or want to watch him play the "adult" parts. He knows they're 'there' and is curious. Games are meant to be moved into by levels, not introduced (as YOU say, with restrictions and boundaries) and then backed away from.

No, a child shouldn't ALWAYS be allowed to openly express themselves. But that's a different topic.

[GGT]

Now we can argue about the iPhone.

Toddlers’ Favorite Toy: The iPhone

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/fa...e&ref=homepage

[littlelolligagged]

My two-year old cousin loves her iPad.

[GGT]

Of course she does. Some of this can be like kiddie crack. I think it's a bit creepy those toddlers spent 6 hours glued to a screen (in the article).

[littlelolligagged]

Parents allowing kids to spend too much time with their teevee/videogames/iPhone/whatever is a legitimate argument to make - but calling it kiddie crack is fairly absurd.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, you just keep saying it's no big deal. Not why you think so, or what lead you to believe so.

I don't mind being a minority opinion here, Nessie. Fuzzy appears to agree, But no one can show me why I should change my view.

Pediatricians, child psychologists, and teachers are where I got my information, and since the "jury is still out" on how those games affect young minds, I'll err on the side of caution. They're not being deprived of games or game-playing if limited to age-appropriate ones. There's something to be said for letting a toddler be a toddler, plenty of time to introduce other adult-oriented stuff in life.

Again, where are you guys coming up with your ideas on this?

A) I've taken a rather milder tack than you did. B) I actually explained what I thought the issues were. Even now, you STILL won't actually verbalize what you think the issue is, simply expecting everyone to read your mind to find the "correct" pedagogic and child developmental psych information.

i.e. don't go trying to bring me into your craziness.

[GGT]

Pediatricians, child psychologists, and teachers are where I got my information, and since the "jury is still out" on how those games affect young minds, I'll err on the side of caution. They're not being deprived of games or game-playing if limited to age-appropriate ones. There's something to be said for letting a toddler be a toddler, plenty of time to introduce other adult-oriented stuff in life.

I already said I wasn't offended! And that my view stems from Pediatricians and child psychologists expressing caution toward very young children being exposed to certain games/movies/activities. And that I have relied on ratings, as many parents do. There's a plethora of age-appropriate games for toddlers that achieve the same types of problem solving driver games that are FUN without using a game like GTA. That's why it's not on pre-schooler or kindergarten play lists. It's not like there aren't alternatives.

Fuzzy, just read the iPhone article for some expert opinions on tech for toddlers. So far, I'm the only one to provide a link that partially supports my POV, with pediatricians and child development experts saying "practice caution". Maybe others will do the same.

[Catgrrl]

I know my husband can't wait until K is old enough to help him delete all of his text messages from the work server on his iPhone.

But I'm sure that will backfire when she hurls it across the room and breaks it.

[Ominous Gamer]

Brandy and I both downgraded to $10 phones. We leave them sitting everywhere, and Scarlett loves her some cellphone hammering. Not to mention most of her toys have hide-away holes (WHY!?), that she loves to use. I think we're still missing a bottle or two.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy, just read the iPhone article for some expert opinions on tech for toddlers. So far, I'm the only one to provide a link that partially supports my POV, with pediatricians and child development experts saying "practice caution". Maybe others will do the same.

I just went back through this entire thread. You haven't posted any links. At all. Or explained in specific terms what you think is or might be objectionable and why. This is what I'm talking about when I say you seem to expect us to read your mind. You post with the assumption that everyone can see things the way you do, without you're providing any connections or explanations. You can't leave all of that implicit.

You mention the concern that games might affect young minds, but don't discuss why this is a concern for GTA, used as outlined in the OP, and not other games, or link it to your thought that young kids shouldn't be playing video games at all. When you posted about "real building," "real driving," etc I managed to make the connection because I was thinking along similar lines, but it took a while, because the way you didn't explain what the potential problem was and how these things addressed it made it just look Luddite. I expect that surface Luddism was all most posters saw.

Spell things out.

[GGT]

It’s a phenomenon that is attracting the attention and concern of some childhood development specialists.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has long advised parents not to let their children watch any TV until they are past their second birthday.

Dr. Gwenn Schurgin O’Keeffe, a pediatrician who is a member of the academy’s council of communications and media, said the group is continually reassessing its guidelines to address new forms of “screen time.”

But Jane M. Healy, an educational psychologist in Vail, Colo. said: “Any parent who thinks a spelling program is educational for that age is missing the whole idea of how the preschool brain grows. What children need at that age is whole body movement, the manipulation of lots of objects and not some opaque technology. You’re not learning to read by lining up the letters in the word ‘cat.’ You’re learning to read by understanding language, by listening. Here’s the parent busily doing something and the kid is playing with the electronic device. Where is the language? There is none.”

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a psychology professor at Temple University who specializes in early language development, sides with the Don’ts. Research shows that children learn best through active engagement that helps them adapt, she said, and interacting with a screen doesn’t qualify.

Those are from the NYT link I posted, Fuzzy. Yes, it's about toddlers and the iPhone, not GTA. It's about tech screens in general, 'new norms', and how young kids learn. Want me to link to American Academy of Pediatrics for their guidelines? But I'll try to spell things out better:

1) Parenting issue---toddlers thrive with age-approriate limits and guidelines. Consistency from parents matters. Playing parts of an adult game can confuse a child about "what's meant for adults" or what he can challenge. Kids love to push limits, or turn No into Maybe or Yes. Adults lose credibility when the lines keep changing. A common example; who wants a kindergarten kid constantly challenging teacher's rules, if he learned at home that No never really mean No? Kids can learn creative thought and thinking outside the box while still learning rules.

2) Child Development issue---neuro-science and psychology is complicated for young children, with so much still unkown. We don't know the root causes behind autism or ADHD, let alone other pathologies that kids don't show until they're toddlers. Dyslexia, reading problems, behavioral problems, neuroses, phobias, etc. Any multi-factorial cause could include environmental elements, exposure to too much stimuli or the wrong kind (as much as depravation of stimuli can affect a growing brain). The pre-frontal lobe isn't fully developed until age 20-21 (for boys). The toddler brain is growing neural pathways, language centers, self-awareness, early moral choices, separating anxieties and fantasy from reality, on and on. They can't filter out extraneous images or stimuli the way an adult brain can, and they don't identify/exhibit/communicate stress the same way either. They're little children, not little adults.

3) Rapidly changing technology---new things will come about more rapidly than ever. We won't know how it impacts young brains or behaviors possibly for a long time to come. Toddlers aren't tweens or teens, they're a distinct sub-group of childhood with distinct needs. While tech can help, it might also hurt. Adults are supposed to err on the side of caution, and moderation.

Is that better?