Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I think that it definitely does affect the way we think and relate.
    Growing up in the "Leave it to Beaver" "Father knows best" era
    certainly did not prepare me for the real world of relationships.
    When my first adult partnership did not "behave" in the prescribed
    manner, I really thought that I had failed.  
    
    My own kids are the products of "The Brady Bunch" and many times
    over the years I have heard comments as to why our life is not like
    theirs is.  The real world has real problems and they are not always
    solveable by having a heart to heart talk.  Real people fight and
    cause each other pain.
    
    I think that the movies and tv shows that are being produced these days 
    aimed at the teen market have at least some substance to them.  They may
    present situations which we find uncomfortable to watch and a lot
    of them do not allow us the luxury of escapism, but at least they
    are dealing with real problems ---- and real solutions.
    
    I know that my kids expectations of relationships - either romantic,
    friendshipwise, or workwise - are much more real than mine were
    when I was the same age.
    

        Then again, one of the best cures for emotional pain and the
        after-affects of fighting is a real heart-to-heart talk. It's
        just that many of us don't really do that. You have to be really
        vulnerable to expose your heart to another one.
        
        JimB.

    I suspect that television's effect is due as much to its physical
    nature as to its content. It becomes all too easy to sit each
    member of the family in a different room with a different show on;
    nobody has to make conversation, and if they did how could they compare
    with the snappy comebacks of the TV personalities and their hordes of
    writers? (Well, okay, so that part's content-related!)
    
    Furthermore, it is a very passive form of entertainment most of
    the time, not requiring even the energy to turn the page. (Advertisers
    play on this when they put new shows on following hit shows, hoping
    that the audience will be too lazy to change the channel.) I've
    found myself growing more reluctant to do much of anything that
    requires active participation, and while I can't blame that all
    on the tube - the years have something to do with it too - I suspect
    it's a contributing factor.
    
    There was an article in "TV Guide" this week about the practice
    of having a mob over to watch some show or other (usually sporting
    events, but anything would do). Watching alone can be mind-numbing,
    but watching with others can become a fascinating social event,
    if everyone is willing to comment on and discuss what's happening
    rather than sit back and take it all in. I don't recommend this
    all the time; if somebody mouths off during an especially tense
    moment, I could get very irate. But having someone to share a good
    show with, or to discuss an informative one with, adds immeasurably
    to the enjoyment.
    
    -b

    I think language skills are declining not because of newspapers
    (which use about a 4th grade vocabulary), but because of the television
    vocabulary.  At least with a newspaper you still have to read. 
    Television writers use a small, monosyllabic set of words that don't
    challenge anyone's intellect (when was the last time Too Close For
    Comfort sent you to the dictionary?)  Too many people get their news
    from (Gawd help us!) 45-second bites on the Evening news:  if only
    more would read newspapers (like the Wash Post or Christian Science
    Monitor [I'm not proselytizing here:  The CSM is not a religious
    newspaper.])  
    
    Basic Generalization:
    Relationships on most TV shows subscribe to an old huckster's axiom:
    "Give The People What They Want" (in my opinion.)  "Real Men",
    women defined by their sexuality; greed, money, and power.  
    It doesn't challenge basic social stereotpyes, it sells soap
    with lots of sex (implied and otherwise), and all problems are worked
    out before the end of the program.  Sensationalism and gloss sell more
    than real depictions of commitment, caring, and
    the real hard work that (in my opinion) real
    love-relationships are all about.  It ain't all Cinderella...
    
    My opinion:  read a good novel and save TV for the odd sporting
    event, ballet, or other quality event.
    
    MM                                                     

    Television rots the brain.  It's the information version of
    candy--lots of fun, but destructive if used often.
    
    I grew up without TV--my family did not have one.  I believe I
    benefited greatly.  I'm fighting with my wife now on the issue;
    when we have children, I don't want them to have access to a
    television.
    			-John Bishop

    I grew up without TV also - my parents refused to have one in
    the house.  We've got one now, down in the wreck room (our
    finished basement which is in a constant state of confusion).
    I haven't watched a show in, dunno, maybe 2-3 months?  I grew
    up reading a lot.
    
    I think I would let my kids have access to TV, but would limit
    their shows a lot.  Perhaps have an "x hours per week" limit,
    which would be reduced to 0 if grades and other activities
    were not up to par.  I think that kids live what they see
    being lived - my kids would see a lot of reading and talking
    and outdoor activity and little television being watched by
    their parents.  I'd also make sure they knew whose television
    it was - ours, not theirs - and that they had to ask to use
    it.  Same with the refrigerator and its contents, but that's
    another topic.
    
    --Louise

    I think that, nowadays, if you refuse to have TV in the house,
    your kids will end up watching it somewhere else.  Better to
    have it around and guide them in what use they make of it.
    
    I don't view television as a universal evil - it is a fundamental
    part of our society, and can be put to constructive use.  The
    key is involvement by the parents.  If you simply turn on the
    TV on Saturday mornings and abandon the kids to it, you're not
    doing your part.  Work with your children and plan the viewing,
    and watch and interact together.
    					Steve

    There was a TV in our house, but my parents would no more let their
    children choose their own TV shows than choose their own meals.
    Kids don't know nutrition, unless you teach them, and they don't
    know what entertainment is good for them, unless you teach them.
    
    My SO and I watch very little network TV, absolutely no cop/detective
    shows, sitcoms or soaps.  Which leaves movies now and then, and
    Disney!  We watch PBS and Channel 11 in NH mostly; my SO favors
    nature/science, I like history shows.  Even there, we don't watch
    much of the "quality" drama, preferring TV for non-fiction only.
    
    I do think that TV affects people's ability to spell -- you don't
    learn to spell by spelling, you learn it by reading, and you can't
    read when you are glued to the tube.  
    
    Slight digression -- anyone see the "history of English language"
    show last night?  A point made was that only since dictionaries
    were made readily available was spelling an issue at all; prior
    to that time, spelling was mostly a matter of taste.  

    I feel very strongly that my son failed in school because of
    television.  It is sad because that is his learning style.  When
    he was three Sesame Street came into being along with the Electric
    Company.  By the time he entered school he could read, recite his
    alphabet and do mathematics.  How did he learn by messages that
    were loud, colorful and repeated frequently.  When he got to school
    the teachers wanted him to be quiet and sit still and learn.  He
    didn't sit still, he wasn't quiet and he stopped learning.  By the
    time he got to high school they finally recognized that different
    children have different learning styles but it was to late because
    he had lost his motivation.  
    
    For some time it has been thought that there were different learning
    styles for adults...but it was 'determined' that the effective learning
    style for children was the lecture, authorative teaching style.
     
    It is really sad that television has such a bad name.  It doesn't
    stop people from reading or learning it is a different style for
    the people who would not enjoy literature or learning if they had
    to read, translate and imagine.

    
    RE: .4...
    
    My girlfriends mother tongue is not English. We do not have a
    television and do not want one.  We read a lot of books.  She often
    asks me for the meaning of words, that even I have to think about, in
    English books.  This is quite educational for both of us; much more
    than watching television would be, form wha I remember of it.
    
    RE: all in general...
    
    I have never been to America.  Friends of mine who are now in the
    States, or those recently returned tell me it is a great place.
    I am suprised. I grew up with a picture of America from the television
    which left me with the impression it was a mixture of 'Miami Vice'
    and 'Starsky and Hutch', with 'Soap' in the real world. I am sure
    I will be corrected....
    
               
    Andy.   /~~m~~\       Macaws_fly_HIGHER_than_eagles_do (!!!?)
              /|\

    Re: .10
    
    Naw - "Soap" is not wierd enough to explain what happens in real
    life in the US!
    
    Seriously, television paints a very inaccurate portrait of life
    in general.  Because US television shows are the most popular
    around the world, many people who haven't seen the US for themselves
    get a distorted notion of what life is like here.  Similarly, I
    am sure that the few visions we get of life in other countries via
    television is not at all like reality.
    
    Today's television largely deals in fantasy.  If you can understand
    that, you can see that Dallas is not like "Dallas" - at least not
    for most of us!  Also, US shows are almost entirely about "exciting"
    cities (which aren't all that exciting if you live there) - few
    programs show how most of us live in more rural areas.  (And a tip
    for those of you who think "Newhart" shows real life in rural
    New England - that too is a fantasy.)
    
    But some fantasy is good for us - keeps our imaginations going.
    As long as we learn to properly separate what is real from what
    is not, we can use television (and movies) to our advantage.
    
    					Steve

    Just a reminder - people have been capable of assuming strange things
    about other cultures since long before the advent of television.
    Europeans used to come to the U. S. expecting Wild West adventures
    everywhere, thanks to the enthusiastic pens of the folks who turned
    out the American equivalent of penny dreadfuls. And the Americans
    who went to Europe had their own misconceptions. 
    
    Television adds to this tendency, of course, by showing pictures
    instead of words, and by being everywhere, all the time. I have
    found, much to my embarrassment, that even I - enthusiastic reader,
    who doesn't follow the crowd, etc. - am being swayed unconsciously
    by having the tube on in the background. It becomes hypnotic; it's
    too easy to flip the channel, hoping for something of minimal interest,
    rather than turning it off and going to the trouble of remembering
    when the next worthwhile program will be on. Sigh...

    Books can become a bad habit, too, but since they take a bit more
    mental effort to read it seems that they don't become addicting
    as often as the tube does. It's powerful, easy to use, and provides
    instant gratification; sounds like a well-engineered product to
    me!
    
    -b

    RE: .12
    
    The major difference between books and TV is that with a book you read
    the words and use YOUR imagination to create in your mind a mental
    picture of what the author of the book is describing.  With TV on the
    otherhand your mind is given all the information required and very
    little thought process is involved. 
    
    Often I have read a book and later seen the film 'of the book' and
    thought that the scenes/persons/actions etc. were very different to how
    I had imagined them from the book. This is often a dissapointment. 
         
    I would dissagree though that the tube displays 'instant gratification' 
    except in the odd wildlife (thats animals, not New York (only kidding!))
    program, and possible 'Soap'!
    
    Andy.

    Two stories:
    
    When I was in Tunisia in 1977, I was talking to two Tunisians.
    One of them asked me, quite seriously, where my gun was.  He
    was surprised when I told him that not only did I travel unarmed,
    but I did not own a firearm at home.
    
    In 1979 I met a bunch of German tourists in the Atlanta airport.
    They had just finished a two-week tour of the US.  I asked them
    what they had noticed.  "The tremendous dispartity in wealth,"
    one of them said (the others nodded), "there are only the rich
    and the poor in this country."  I asked them where they had been;
    San Fransisco, Washington, New York, and Hollywood.
    
    "Then you never saw normal people," I told them, "you flew over
    three thousand miles of suburban houses."   They were polite,
    but I could see they did not believe me.
    
    TV shows part of the truth with such authority that the viewer 
    thinks it is all of the truth.

    				-John Bishop

    I agree with the anti-TV sentiments expressed here, but I disagree
    with the parenting style implied by .5 and .6. Laying down rules
    ("I won't let my kids watch TV") just leads to parent-child hostility
    and is ineffective anyway. A better style is to offer your
    kids more stimulating ways of spending their time. "Do you want
    to go for a bike ride with Daddy?" or "Do you want me to read you
    a book?" will almost always get a "yes" response, even if the child
    is currently sitting in front of the TV. Given the choice,
    kids would rather interact with parents than watch TV. The reason
    many kids watch so much TV is the fact that their parents are
    ignoring them. It's not the TV itself that rots the brain, it's
    the lack of interaction with the parents.
    
    My son will be allowed to watch as much TV as he wants, but I'm
    confident he will choose not to.
    
    	- Rich

    
�    My son will be allowed to watch as much TV as he wants, but I'm
�    confident he will choose not to.
     
     I admire your confidence :-)
     
     I grew up in a home with no TV: to be fair in Britain at that time
     there was only one broadcast channel (BBC) and it transmitted "Children's
     Hour" and then shut down until after my bedtime...
     
     When I was 16 we got a TV and I became an instant addict (though my
     nightly 2-3 hours of homework had to be completed before the set was
     turned on).
     
     A friend in Britain faced with the problem of how to control his son's
     viewing came to the following solution: he replaced his rental TV by
     a rental "pay-per-view" set. These have a coin operated meter. If you
     want to watch you feed it coins of the realm :-)
     
     Now junior can watch all he wants: provided either (a) his parents
     want to watch and pay, or (b) junior pays himself from his pocket money.
     And no his allowance wasn't increased to allow for this sudden, drastic
     increase in his cost of living.
     
     /. Ian .\

    I, too, admire your confidence -- I used to feel the same way until I
    realized there is no limit to the number of Saturday morning cartoons a
    six-year-old will watch, given the freedom.
    
    We reached what I felt was a reasonable compromise between her desire
    to veg out and my desire to have her explore other forms of
    entertainment -- she was allowed a daily quota (one hour before 7 p.m.
    on weekdays, a bit more on weekends).  She could choose which show or
    shows she would watch, but she couldn't exceed that set amount without
    special pleading.  The quota increased as she got older. 
    
    (Also, since there's only one TV, in the living room, she can't
    watch if it conflicts with what somebody else is doing.  Like talking.)
    
    --bonnie
    
    

It's good to see people admire your confidence. I actually share it.

When my daughters were young, we restricted their TV viewing both as
to subject matter and to time. It was mostly a French program
concerning the lifestyle and problems of a duck whose name was very
French and Sesame Street. This regime was strictly adhered to, 
despite the occasional "other kids can watch all they want" routine.

When we moved to this country, I lifted all restrictions - I wanted
the kids to learn English as quickly as they could. This they did,
within the space of three months. Surprisingly, they never even came
close to an OD on TV. They preferred --as young adults, still do-- a
lively conversation, a game or going out, to watching. To this day,
the only video fanatic in the family, is yours truly. I often watch 
alone...

-- Ron

    I don't know what it proves, but my daughter (now 5�) has simply
    never been exposed to much television.  We have a TV, and watch
    it occasionally, but we never put her in front of it and said,
    "Sit and watch", nor have we watched it in her presence.  (Ok,
    an occasional _Living_Planet_ or space shuttle launch.)  The
    television is in our home, but TV watching simply isn't part
    of her life.
    
	-Neil

    Let me tell you one of the things my son will do: If I'm watching
    TV (and therefore, not paying attention to him), he will fetch one
    of his storybooks, then he will go turn off the TV, and then he
    will hand me the book and ask me to read it to him. Usually I 
    laugh and agree - the junk on TV isn't worth watching anyway.
        
    That's why I'm confident he will choose not to watch much TV.
    Of course, his preferences may change as he grows older (he's
    just two and a half now). We'll see.
    
    	- Rich