1. Comment #272426 by Prospero on October 27, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Adults don't tell children that Harry Potter is true. They do that with religion.
I hope Dawkins don't take this anti-Potter thing to seriously. He will seem humorless - which he is not.

Other Comments by Prospero

2. Comment #272428 by alabasterocean on October 27, 2008 at 12:03 pm

The one good thing about children's books is that state leaders and armed military bands doesn't evoke war because some group say that Harry Potter is better then Prince Caspian.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

3. Comment #272431 by mordacious1 on October 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm

"...is any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards has a pernicious effect."

This has been discussed in depth on the other thread but:

1. It all depends on the motives of the parents.

2. Most born-agains in the U.S. do not allow their children to read about magic and wizards because they are "of the devil", no competing myths allowed.

3. I think that once children learn that Santa and wizards are not real, they question other myths, like god.

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #272433 by eh-theist on October 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm appalled at your statement, mordacious. How can you claim that wizards are not real until you've studied, seriously, in wizardry? If you have read the book and still believe this, you have taken it out of context.

Other Comments by eh-theist

5. Comment #272435 by Freethinker15 on October 27, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I've never liked harry potter anyway. Haven't read any of the books and can't stand the films. To much randomness for me.

"Reality produces facts so romantic that imagination could add nothing to it." Jules Verne

Other Comments by Freethinker15

6. Comment #272437 by mordacious1 on October 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

eh-theist

I thought I'd get complaints about saying Santa isn't real.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #272438 by javb222 on October 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

mordacious1:

Most born-agains in the U.S. do not allow their children to read about magic and wizards because they are "of the devil", no competing myths allowed.

What? Really? That seems dodgy. I can't believe that "most" evangelicals don't do Santa on Xmas, Witches on Halloween, Aesop fables, fairy tales, etc.

Prospero

I hope Dawkins don't take this anti-Potter thing to seriously.

I think he posted a comment on this topic in the Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust - Libby Purves - Times Online article.

Other Comments by javb222

8. Comment #272439 by Sciros on October 27, 2008 at 12:38 pm

How about all the mythology and/or "fairy tales" that you can't keep children away from even if you tried, like Pokemon, Superman, Spiderman, Star Wars, etc.

What we imagine, and what children imagine, I'm not sure even *can* be constrained by what "what we understand can and cannot truly exist given the laws of physics and nature."

I think Richard will find that the nourishment fantasy stories provide to childrens' imagination can well outweigh any ill effect on their rationality if the stories are not presented to children as indisputable fact the way religion is.

Other Comments by Sciros

9. Comment #272440 by andreab on October 27, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Why must something be 100% true to be ok?
Did anyone tell Bill Shakespere that his tales of donkey-headed men and faries were corrupting children?
Religion may be fantasy but fantasy does not have to be religion!

Other Comments by andreab

10. Comment #272441 by Enlightenme.. on October 27, 2008 at 12:46 pm

This reminds me of the debate about Tom & Jerry cartoons.

Children don't seem to think it is okay to smash saucepans repeatedly over people's heads or the like, do they?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

11. Comment #272442 by Cerbera6 on October 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I love RD but this video posting had me slightly worried. Does he not know that intelligently brought up kids can love science fiction yet realise what they're hearing/reading is fiction. I personally read 2000AD comics and Tolkien from a very early age. I think this helped me as I naturally placed religion in the same category of fiction as I placed the former, albeit at the bottom of the list that most entertained my burgeoning intellect.

I hope it was bad context editing or at least that RD reads these comments.

Other Comments by Cerbera6

12. Comment #272443 by Jolly Bloger on October 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Anecdotally, I would disagree with Dawkins about fantasy being anti-scientific. There seems to be a pretty strong correlation between being a science lover and a sci-fi/fantasy lover. I don't know what the correlation looks like the other way around (is a fantasy fan more likely to be a science fan) but my guess is that it certainly doesn't hurt.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

13. Comment #272447 by SniderD on October 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Ultraviolet G:
I've seen more than one example of children not being able to tell the difference between make-believe and reality even when they are directly told that something is make believe.

Personally I was about 13 before I stopped believing in things like Ghosts and UFOs. One of my only memorable childhood fears was being abducted. It was a very real possibility to me. This was despite my parents saying "I don't think those things exist. They are not something to worry about."

Other Comments by SniderD

14. Comment #272448 by mordacious1 on October 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm

javb222

Every evan church in my area offers alternative-to-halloween parties. They give out candy and other goodies, but their theme is biblical rather than "devil worship". They have tried to ban Harry Potter from schools because it teaches wizardry. I think this is the norm among these people. Look what happened to the movie "Golden Compass". There was an email compaign to get people in the U.S. to boycott it and it did poorly here.

Other Comments by mordacious1

15. Comment #272449 by eh-theist on October 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I haven't had a chance to watch the video but from what I have read, I think the real issue is how it is presented to the children and how it is reinforced. If the parents/teachers pass it off as "true", it will have a different effect than if they are told that they are just stories.

Richard's point above (and on the other thread) would be more a word of caution - intuition can be completely wrong. Research needs to be done.

Reading a number of "fairy tales", I would guess, would somewhat negate the seeming truthfulness of any of them. Reading the same book a number of times and not having anything to compare it with is a problem.

Just as teaching religions comparatively might negate some of the threat of dogmatic belief, letting kids read other myths and fairy tales might also hamper the efforts of parents to indoctrinate their children. (Wishful thinking? Possibly. Let's see the research before we assume anything to be true.)

Other Comments by eh-theist

16. Comment #272451 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #272442 by Cerbera6

I love RD but this video posting had me slightly worried. Does he not know that intelligently brought up kids can love science fiction yet realise what they're hearing/reading is fiction.

On this thread, and the other related one I keep seeing responses to things Richard Dawkins has never said. I listened carefully to what he said and read what he as written, and I see not the slightest mention of science fiction.

I can't speak for Dawkins, obviously, but I get the impression that people think he is against fictional stories. All I see is him wondering in an open-minded way if introducing children to ideas of magic can prime them for belief in religion and even hostility to science.

I can see what he is saying, and I think he may have a point. If a young child fantasizes about wizards and dragons, and they are told science says that those beliefs are just dreams, and can never be real, I am sure is is possible that there could be some hostility to science if the true wonders of science aren't introduced to the child at the right time. In place of wizards, tell them about Newton and Kepler. In place of dragons, dinosaurs.

I can also see how such magical stories could prime a child's mind for religion. The disappointment that a child gets whenever they realise that the stories of fairies and unicorns aren't true can be less if they believe in eternal life, angels and baby Jesus.

Dawkins is not saying don't tell children stories. Just that we should ensure that we open their minds to the wonders of science, and give them the ability to think critically at an early stage. I think that is a wonderful attitude. I can't think of a more important project than to educate children in this way, and I can't think of anyone better to write such a book.

I have to add that this was a truly awfully presented interview... "Dawkins taking on Harry Potter"! What nonsense.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #272452 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm

This is the most ridiculous I've ever seen anyone make RD look.

Other Comments by Wosret

18. Comment #272454 by Titania on October 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Mitchell,

Are you faulting the interviewer or RD?

Other Comments by Titania

19. Comment #272456 by Richard Dawkins on October 27, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Richard, children know the difference between "make-believe" and reality, even at quite a young age: provided that trusted adults don't tell them that something is actually true.

Oh well, that's very nice to know. Obviously you've done the research, and so you know what you are talking about. Or do you just know, from your personal intuition, what children think?

I am agnostic about almost everything that is being said on this thread, and the other two threads on the same topic. Also, I have no view on Harry Potter. I know nothing about Harry Potter, one way or the other. I have never read Harry Potter, and, contrary to the More4 report, I never said anything about Harry Potter. All I said was that it would be nice to see some RESEARCH on the question of the influence of magical stories on children. I did not, and I do not, prejudge the result, and I offer no opinion. I am fed up with opinions and feelings.

Some people feel it is obvious that the death penalty deters murder. Some people feel it is obvious that violence on television and in computer games incites violence. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Same with children and magic. I don't care what you feel, and I don't care what I feel. I want to see the evidence. Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know that the evidence shows.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

20. Comment #272464 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:28 pm

19. Comment #272454 by Titania

The way the interview was done. Painting RD as anti-fiction. This, I think is absurd. He was good friends with my favorite Si-Fi writer, Dougles Adams, and even met his wife through him, if I am not mistaken.

I wasn't exactly clear what RD was getting at, because it was such a short interview, but it definitely was nothing like they attempted to paint it.

Other Comments by Wosret

21. Comment #272471 by a non e-moose on October 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm

I'm not sure I understand what He's saying... is he saying fantasy literature is anti-scientific? In my exerience, fantasy geeks (I've known quite a few of them) are typically more rational and intellifgent than the average joe.

I understand you don't give a bugger about this anecdotal evidence, but I wonder what raised your suspicion of a pernicious effect of fantasy in the first place?

The majority of the people in the fantasy society at my uni are studying science, and quite a few are also in the atheist society.




...then again, I do know a fantasy geek that is into alchemy and 'witchcraft' as well.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

22. Comment #272472 by Titania on October 27, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Mitchell,

I thought that is what you meant but you were uncharacteristically ambiguous. Thanks for clarifying.

Other Comments by Titania

23. Comment #272475 by Sally Luxmoore on October 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The funny thing about this is that many of us are reacting to any suggestion of anti-Harry Potterism in the same way that the theists react to having their 'religious feelings' hurt!
Sorry Richard.
I suppose we ought to realise too that you are being 100% down the middle.
Wait for the evidence!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

24. Comment #272476 by jdaudett on October 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Richard,
If I could propose a hypothesis along the lines of what Ultraviolet G was saying, perhaps the way these books/movies/media are framed is more important than the media themselves? I would imagine that introducing young minds to rubbish and telling them that it is in fact rubbish, comforting rubbish, funny rubbish, etc. would be good for them in terms of learning to think for themselves. It would fit with the idea that we are evolved to listen to our parents at a young age, and explain my (though few) observations that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" ideologically. I'd also guess that there's entirely too much literature on the subject out there in the form of parenting books.

Good luck with the experimentation.

PS: I also just remembered reading somewhere about the human mind being evolved to emulate other people/things, and perhaps that might add to it.

Other Comments by jdaudett

25. Comment #272478 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #272471 by a non e-moose

In my exerience, fantasy geeks (I've known quite a few of them) are typically more rational and intellifgent than the average joe.

"Richard Dawkins says he will spend his retirement writing a book for children."

"I have read Pullman who is the other leading children's author .."

"I would like to know whether there is any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards has a pernicious effect."

Get the message? Sorry to sound abrubt, but I am just bewildered as to why so many seem to be missing the point (in my view).

Books that encourage critical thinking, and reveals the wonder of science, for children, could, especially if it can get into schools, be one of the most important ways we can attack irrationality and the increasing problem of creationism and anti-science attitudes.

I was very strongly influenced by being given a child's science encylopaedia at age 4. I have really never "recovered" from that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #272481 by Byrnie on October 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm

The poet in me became rather defensive when i watched this. Escapism/fiction/mythology are things which can inspire children to think laterally, and is something which i believe has a direct link to the imagination of a child.

Other Comments by Byrnie

27. Comment #272482 by Richard Dawkins on October 27, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I am starting to suspect that people on this thread are using 'fantasy' to mean 'science fiction', and are confusing that with the fairy tales that I was talking about. I love science fiction, and think it is wonderful for stimulating imaginative scientific ideas. Science thrives on imagination, the wilder the better. I was never talking about anything close to science fiction, in any case. I was talking about magic spells, turning princes into frogs and things like that. That is not science fiction, that is fairy tales. And I wasn't even coming out against fairy tales, only wondering what research might show about their effects on children.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

28. Comment #272486 by a non e-moose on October 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm

@ steve zara

What, you think that fantasy fans in their 20s only read textbooks as kids?

As long as no one is telling kids that harry potter is actually true, it seems absurd to me to think it is anti-scientific. I think it has the oposite effect; the more fiction one is exposed to, regardless of age, the better equipped one is to tell fact from fiction.

Really, this is completely misguided, and I fear Dawkins risks alienating a large portion of his potential fan base if he keeps this up.

Edit: @Dawkins: fantasy and science fiction share a large portions of its fanbase.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

29. Comment #272488 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

22. Comment #272471 by a non e-moose

I'm a massive fantasy geek. As long as I'm clear that this is speculation, I will offer some. I think that it is quite possible that the more one knows about fantasy, and fiction, the easier it is to see common themes, and archetypes as the individuals, and stories that appear in religion.

A knowledge of them reveal the claims of "uniqueness" and so forth, obvious nonsense. It perhaps allows one to better judge the line between reality and fiction. Based on common indicators.

I've often contemplated how it was that I could be raised in such a fundamentalist family, and only have religious friends, and to have never believed it, or never found it inspiring. I think that it is quite possible, that I just had better fiction, and more inspiring characters than Christianity could offer at my disposal.

Could also be that the bible offers no significant female characters. Something that is a must for me.

23. Comment #272472 by Titania

You're right, I wasn't clear. That could have been easily misconstrued.

Other Comments by Wosret

30. Comment #272490 by Knucklesdude on October 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm

But I think it's safe to say those that are hardcore religious (specifically Catholic faith) are usually less inclined to even consider reading a Harry Potter book. The Pope opposes them of course: "It is good that you explain the facts of Harry Potter, because this is a subtle seduction, which has deeply unnoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it can really grow properly."

So maybe the Pope thinks minds of children could, past the point of accepting the Catholic faith, be feeble enough to allow a fiction book to corrupt their worldview? And the Pope mentions facts vs. Harry Potter, what is better contradictory fact than science? Unlike the Bible, the Harry Potter series admits it is a fictional tale from the start.

I think parents may sway to the same stance the Pope does. I don't really have any evidence, but you can Google "catholic" or "christian" and "Harry Potter" to view the numerous articles on bans of the book and hatred from the faith.

And disregarding my opinion that the tale of Harry Potter is much more probable of being true than the Bible, I don't think kids could seriously have a worldview today based upon witchcraft and wizardry.

Other Comments by Knucklesdude

31. Comment #272491 by Sally Luxmoore on October 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Phew! I was thinking about how much I love Arthur C Clarke. . .
Seriously. . . Maybe teachers (and I used to be one myself) should spend more time discussing with little children how they know that something is a 'story' and that something else is true. Not enough time given to that in the over-stuffed curriculum.
For older ones, Richard's letter to his daughter at the back of A Devil's Chaplin is hard to better. I read it to both of my children when they were younger.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

32. Comment #272493 by mitch_486 on October 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

From the article,

The former Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University wants to find out if fantasy stories affect their readers' abilities to think rationally.

It seems most people find the terms "science fiction" and "fanatasy" interchangable,
As I did.

Other Comments by mitch_486

33. Comment #272496 by OverUsedChewToy on October 27, 2008 at 1:53 pm

"I don't care what you feel, and I don't care what I feel. I want to see the evidence. Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know that the evidence shows."

That is quite possibly the best thing I've read on this website. The entire struggle for enlightenment, human rights, scientific rationalism and naturalism has been precisely an uphill battle against people relying upon their intuitions, preconceived notions, feelings and all of these things people have been fooled into thinking are reliable. They're not, they've been adapted for survival in a small niche of the ecological chain and that is all.

To any movement that aspires to a greater vision of humanity, intuition is the greatest hurdle it must overcome.

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

34. Comment #272498 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #272486 by a non e-moose

What, you think that fantasy fans in their 20s only read textbooks as kids?

No! It is just that your mention of fantasy fans in their teens or 20s is irrelevant, as this discussion (I thought) was about what children read. Children are introduced to fairy stories as soon as they can read. That is when impressionable young minds may be influenced by such stories.

Really, this is completely misguided, and I fear Dawkins risks alienating a large portion of his potential fan base if he keeps this up.

I give up! This seems to be one of those topics!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #272499 by SniderD on October 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I could never get into fantasy novels.

For every problem the characters get into it's like "Gee, how are they going to solve this one? Let me guess... WIZARD MAGIC!"

I have the same problem with a lot of soft science fiction too.

Other Comments by SniderD

36. Comment #272500 by abluequandary on October 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I find this whole question rather fascinating.

I wonder whether exposure to fantasy stories could actually prime children for discerning between fantasy and reality. Dale McGowan, the author of Parenting Beyond Belief, makes a case for the myth of Santa Claus as a practice run in critical thinking. To quote:

Santa Claus, my secular friends, is the greatest gift a rational worldview ever had. Our culture has constructed a silly and temporary myth parallel to its silly and permanent one. They share a striking number of characteristics, yet the one is cast aside halfway through childhood.

Read more.

I think this idea is interesting. And testable.

Other Comments by abluequandary

37. Comment #272501 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

28. Comment #272482 by Richard Dawkins

There is not such a clear line between the two.

Could the infinite improbability drive not achieve a frog to prince conversion?

If scenario A is almost certainly impossible in principle, and scenario B is almost certainly impossible in principle, then what is the difference if A is presented as natural, and B as supernatural?

If anything, isn't scenario A the most likely to confuse?

Other Comments by Wosret

38. Comment #272502 by black wolf on October 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I listened to and read a very large number of fairytales as a kid, books, tapes, and films. Some were fascinatingly scary (like the Mountain King, the tale Grieg wrote his famous music about). Growing up in West Berlin, we got the East German television which aired all the eastern European fairy tale films. Then they made a television film series where all these fairy tale characters came into the real world, with a bit of romance and a lot of hilarious twists and turns, like the family father having to spend a few episodes as a dog.

I read books of folk tales from all over the world, Greek myths, Aboriginal myths, Asian myths. The illustrated Bible with quite bloody and gruesome illustrations was just one of many. When I found I was satisfied with all the myths, I read about dinosaurs, extinct mammals and medieval history. The connection was obvious to me: people had made up stories for what they couldn't explain, creating the image of dragons from dinosaur bones someone probably found, exaggerating observations of cephalopods to the image of The Kraken, unicorns, mermaids, centaurs and so on. Contemporary stories about aliens and ghosts were just the same to me.

Had my parents indoctrinated me into believing one of those stories was real, I don't know if I might have believed them and become religious. Apparently some children can tell fantasy from reality on their own, and others can not.
If an indicator could be found as to which children can and can't before they actually start denying reality, we'd have a tremendously valuable tool to end the insanity.

Other Comments by black wolf

39. Comment #272504 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I'm getting more confused the more I read. This thread, and the other one I read, does seem to hint at certain value judgements from Richard. Above it's made clear that he loves science fiction (a thumbs up from Richard). Then Richard wonders whether fairy tales are as benign as some might think (for me this indicates a thumbs down).

Sure, what I think doesn't matter. It's evidence that matters. A personal story or some other anecdote is going to have no merit. "Show me the evidence".

Well, I've been waiting for the evidence, but I've not seen it yet. Nor have I found any from my own research. Indeed, on the other thread good arguments were put as to how difficult it would be to set up the experiment (a group of kids with no fairy tales in their lives) and I'm not sure how you'd measure the benefits or problems produced throughout someone's life. But, yes, fair enough, some evidence may yet be found.

Whilst I wait, I'll listen to how people feel, including Richard's value judgements. Let the gossip continue, just as on many of the other threads.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

40. Comment #272506 by a non e-moose on October 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm

@steve
I consider teenagers children, in which case I thought it was a fair assumption that a fantasy fan in their 20's is more likely to have read a lot of fantasy as a child. If you're talking 5 year-olds, it may be a less valid assumption. Still, I'm curious to know where Dawkins got his suspicions from in the first place. I expect he would find the opposite if someone actually did the studies he is advocating.

I give up! This seems to be one of those topics!

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

41. Comment #272507 by Stephan on October 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I hope Richard Dawkins won't disappear completely now that he has retired. The question about myths in child rearing is one I have frequentl asked myself, and actually it would have been the question I would have put to Prof. Dawkins if I had ever had the privilege to see him at a public lecture.
I'm defnitely planning on bringing up my future children without religious, or generally mythical, nonsense, be it God, Heaven and Hell, Santa Clause, the Easter Rabbit or the Tooth Fairy. I just think it cannot be benificial to sort of instill the very kind of uncritical thinking in our children that we are trying to get rid of in general. If we make them believe in an old man with a beard, travelling all around the world in one night, knowing all the wishes of all the children on earth we might as well make them believe in an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud and reading the thoughts of all people on earth... I don't completely know how to do it yet, but I hope I'll have it figured out when the time comes.

Other Comments by Stephan

42. Comment #272508 by mordacious1 on October 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm

"Really, this is completely misguided, and I fear Dawkins risks alienating a large portion of his potential fan base if he keeps this up."

You missed the part where Richard said he was agnostic on the subject?

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #272510 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #272506 by a non e-moose

I consider teenagers children, in which case I thought it was a fair assumption that a fantasy fan in their 20's is more likely to have read a lot of fantasy as a child.

I thought one of the main points of this thread was about questioning assumptions like this.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Sorry. There are threads where I find that I am entirely missing the point, or I come across others who seem to me to be missing that point. At some stage, I think I am talking so much at cross purposes with others I should shut up about the topic. (This rarely lasts long)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #272511 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm

35. Comment #272498 by Steve Zara

I learned to read playing Final Fantasy, and I am still addicted. I love magic, and mysticism. They're beautiful and enthralling. The first books I ever read were the book series "Everworld".

I still spend a large chunk of my time immersed in fantasy.

As I said before, I think that it is quite possible that this has done a lot to equip me with the ability to recognize fantasy when I see it. Not convince me that fantasy is real.

Other Comments by Wosret

45. Comment #272512 by Titania on October 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Off topic. Sorry to interrupt with breaking news.

ATF: Disrupted skinhead plot in Tenn., Ark. to kill Obama, 102 blacks

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081027/NEWS08/81027063/-1/NLETTER04&source=nletter-breakingnews

We all know what fairy tales the skinheads have been listening to.

Other Comments by Titania

46. Comment #272513 by SniderD on October 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm

It is amazing how little research there is. You can find hundreds of papers on Fairy Tales as they relate to feminism, race relations, treatment of animals but ironically almost nothing on childhood development.

Other Comments by SniderD

47. Comment #272514 by Steve Zara on October 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #272511 by Mitchell Gilks

I learned to read playing Final Fantasy, and I am still addicted.

I had forgotten about video games, and how young players can be. That shows how out of touch I am!

That does raise an interesting question - would material designed to promote science and critical thinking be effective if placed on video games? How about "hunt the transitional fossil?" :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #272515 by NewEnglandBob on October 27, 2008 at 2:16 pm

40. Comment #272504 by ColdFusionLazarus:

Well, I've been waiting for the evidence, but I've not seen it yet. Nor have I have I found any from my own research. Indeed, on the other thread good arguments were put as to how difficult it would be to set up the experiment (a group of kids with no fairy tales in their lives) and I'm not sure how you'd measure the benefits or problems produced throughout someones life. But, yes, fair enough, some evidence may yet be found.

As Carl Sagan has said:

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."

Someone will imaginatively figure out how to do the appropriate research.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

49. Comment #272516 by a non e-moose on October 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I thought one of the main points of this thread was about questioning assumptions like this.

Again, this is anecdotal, bit it isn't an entirely baseless assumption; pretty much all the fantasy geeks I know will readily go into nostalgic monologous about the fantasy books they read as children... it can be quite annoying really...

Other Comments by a non e-moose

50. Comment #272518 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm

48. Comment #272514 by Steve Zara

Well, there definitely can be anti-religious games. I recently played "Assassin's Greed". About a Muslim Assassin during the crusades.

*spoiler*

Turned out in the end that all the world religion's miracles were the result of some weird alien piece of technology, that could fool a person's perception, and make them believe whatever they wanted. Pretend Christians, and pretend Muslims that new the stories were bullshit were attempting to acquire the piece of technology for their own aims.

Kind of a lame premise in my opinion. Nonsense science fiction based on the absurd idea that your ancestors specific memories are stored within your DNA. Yet this is supposedly better than fantasy...

*Spoiler*

Spore is a game like you describe, in the way. Isn't it?

Other Comments by Wosret