Santa Claus - Reinforcing the Lie?

[Gurdur]

* sigh *

Am I the only one so far to think of the Hogfather and the lessons therein?

 

[Loss Leader]

Tell the kids he's Jewish. Then you can avoid the whole situation.

This is exactly the course my parents took with me. I don't feel like I missed anything not having Christmas and Santa. But, then, I wasn't supposed to miss anything.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, I think articulett has you on ignore.

No, she does not.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

* sigh *

Am I the only one so far to think of the Hogfather and the lessons therein?

While I enjoyed the Hogfather, the "lessons" were vacuus. There's no evidence that we must believe lies as children in order to believe that truth, justice, mercy, and other virutes exist. They are social constructs, and consequences of our genetic heritage. There's no relationship between lying to your kids and having them act like decent people.

The very fact that you brought it up makes me wonder if you meant to imply that Jews are not virtuous.

 

[Gurdur]

While I enjoyed the Hogfather, the "lessons" were vacuus.

Quite possibly you simply didn't understand them.

They are social constructs,

So near and yet so far.

and consequences of our genetic heritage.

Now that's vacuous! Find the gene for the Hogfather, worthy of a novel itself.

Do you know the phrase "evolutionary Just-So stories"? Opinions rather looked down upon by real evo biologists.

The very fact that you brought it up makes me wonder if you meant to imply that Jews are not virtuous.

Do you really mean that, or are you simply having a bad day off-planet?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Now that's vacuous! Find the gene for the Hogfather, worthy of a novel itself.

Excuse me, but are you aware that altruism has a biological basis and is observed in organisms besides humans? Dolphins, bees, and elephants do not have mythical stories they tell their children. Ergo, the premise that we must lie to kids for them to be good is false. Do not accuse me of making up a just so story when altruism is an observed behavior in social animals.

As for whether I am serious. I most certainly am. If you mean to say that lying to children about Santa is required for children to good, then you are implying that children who are not lied to are less virtuous.

 

[Random]

I will just lift shamelessly from Hogfather:

Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

 

[Gurdur]

Excuse me, but are you aware that altruism has a biological basis and is observed in organisms besides humans?

Excuse me, but are you at all aware that:

1) every and each behaviour of any kind at all can be said to have a genetic basis, since it must, but that's a very empty statement unless you can bring some relevance and cogency to it

2) Conflating "altruism" in bees, for god's sakes, with altruism in humans is to commit massive fallacies of ambiguity with the phrase; human behaviour of the advanced cognitive self-modelling and self-altering sort such as human altruism has nothing in common with bees, nothing. Had you stuck to dolphins and elephants, you would be a little better off, though still wrong; had you stuck with elephants only, you would have been far better off.

But bees?

Do you have any idea of the behavioural neurology of bees? It is very very far from advanced cognitive self-modelling and self-altering sort such as human altruism.

Do not accuse me of making up a just so story when altruism is an observed behavior in social animals.

May I humbly suggest you study some evolutionary biology and comparative neurology? Plus a mite of philosophy on how not to make category mistakes.

As for whether I am serious. I most certainly am. If you mean to say that lying to children about Santa is required for children to good, then you are implying that children who are not lied to are less virtuous.

What you said was:

The very fact that you brought it up makes me wonder if you meant to imply that Jews are not virtuous.

I asked you if you were off-planet. BTW, fallacy of false bifurcation on your extended explanation; you seem to think that there are only two choices here, and that is not so.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

2) Conflating "altruism" in bees, for god's sakes, with altruism in humans is to commit massive fallacies of ambiguity with the phrase; human behaviour of the advanced cognitive self-modelling and self-altering sort such as human altruism has nothing in common with bees, nothing. Had you stuck to dolphins and elephants, you would be a little better off, though still wrong; had you stuck with elephants only, you would have been far better off.

But bees?

Altruism is merely any behavior which benefits another being more than it benefits the actor. It's not a complex behavior and declaring that what makes bees altruistic is not what makes humans altruistic is needlessly anthropcentirc. There are altruistic behaviors in communial insects, in fact, it's the basis for their communal life. There are altruistic behaviors in apes, who do not lie to their children about Santa, and there were presumably altruistic behaviors in our hominid ancestors long before they lied about Santa to their children.

May I humbly suggest you study some evolutionary biology and comparative neurology? Plus a mite of philosophy on how not to make category mistakes.

I am a student of biology. I'll have my degree at the end of the summer, thank you.

 

[articulett]

Nobody thinks gurdur is as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Last September, my wife and I welcomed our first child into this world. He's a biasedly beautiful bouncing baby boy. Now that he's starting to go through some of the more major developmental stages I've been pondering the question of Santa Claus. That is, the question of do I lie to my son (and any future children) and reinforce the myth of Santa Claus as the jolly giver of gifts and the bowl full of jelly bringer of joy, or do I shuck all that for the winter's cold truth?

There are a great many folk whose opinions I respect on these forums, and I would appreciate your input on this subject.

Hey RobRoy,

Welcome to fatherhood! My wife and I talked about this when we had our daughter. My wife didn't see any harm in it, I didn't really like the idea of emphasizing Santa Claus or even telling them about Santa Claus. So we decided not to mention him and the first few years our daughter never got a present from Santa.

Well - by the time her third birthday she began instructing us about Santa and the precise way to set out the cookies, etc. etc. She must have picked up on the story from preschool, hearing songs on the radio, TV (even when not watching a Christmas cartoon there are plenty of Christmas commercials.)

The bottom line is now both her and her brother get presents from Santa although he's not really the emphasis in our family it's still fun.

Now - if you want to get philisophical about Santa take a listen to this song by the country band Alabama titled Santa Claus (I still believe in you). They have one of the best Christmas CD's by the way!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkZ5bczKQog



My opinion: It's inevitable they'll want and be exposed to Santa at Christmas. Go for it, have fun, and balance it with whatever your religious beliefs are.

Peace bro,

ACS

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I will just lift shamelessly from Hogfather:

That's precisely the arogant, vacuus bit I was thinking of. If you "take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve" you will not find the design for a new model of car, or a law yet to be written.

One possible argument against that is that virtues are things people create rather than preexisting constructs. The other is that if you examine out bioligcal heritage you actually do find that animals act virtuously, so virtuous behavior isn't some unique product of our fancy-smanchy brains but an animal behavior much like any other.

 

[NewtonTrino]

This decision was made before I even met my Step-Chittles so I'm currently going along with the Santa thing. I put my own name on presents I give them so I'm not participating actively other than to not spoil it.

Once the "secret" is out of the bag I plan on using as an object lesson to the kids. Basically along the lines of "Hey kids, people will LIE to you about the world so you better be prepared to look at everything through a skeptical eye". If they were wholly mine I would have just told them Santa isn't real (they get the same amount of presents either way!).

 

[RandFan]

Children are also able to shove pencil erasers up their noses. That doesn't mean that it's good for them.

You folks can lie to your kids if you like. When I raise children, I want them to able to trust that I won't lie to them for my own vicarious and nostaglic amusement.

If there was any evidence that children develop mistrust over Santa Claus then I would agree with you.

In all actuality, AIU, fantasy is quite healthy for children.

The Santa Claus Deception.

Although many parents tell him that they feel uncomfortable about maintaining the Santa Claus fantasy, Dr. Canino said, there are no dangers in encouraging it. ''Children already fantasize very actively at age 3 or 4, when they believe in Santa Claus,'' he said. ''Many parents say that they don't want their children to believe in myths - they want them to have a strong sense of reality. But children at that age want to have fantasies. It's a very normal part of development.''

Dr. Leonard Reich, a child psychologist for the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, said: ''Just how much Santa Claus you have depends on how much fantasy there is in your family. Kids need a sense of magic and fantasy, and so the Santa Claus ritual can be a wonderful thing for both parents and children.''

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If there was any evidence that children develop mistrust over Santa Claus then I would agree with you.

In all actuality, AIU, fantasy is quite healthy for children.

I'm quite open to evidence that the fantasy is healthy for children, but a New York Times article about a sample of physchological opinions isn't evidence.

Personally, I'm predisposed to think that it's not a particularly big deal either way. However, I want to be as honest with my children as I can. So, assuming that treating my children with the respect they deserve isn't bad for them, I'm going to avoid lying to them about magical people.

ETA: At best, people try to excuse the Santa myth. Imagine if there were no Santa Claus myth. How would people respond to the following proposal:

"I think we should all conspire to lie to children. Not just our own children, either. You who don't have kids won't tell children that something's up. We're going to make up a story about a fat, jolly man who lives in a remote and inaccessible place, and who is inexplicably able to enter any home, and can tell, through some kind of remote veiwing, what all children are doing and whether or not he approves of their activities.

"The pay off for the ankle biters will be presents distributed per anum. Presents we buy, of course.

"Now, you might ask why we would do this. None of us were lied to as kids about this fat figure, so nostalgia is right out as a modivator. We think it might maybe be a healthy fantasy, or it might engender resentment on the order of a New York Time bestseller novel titled 'My Life With Daddy, the LIAR.' No idea. Your mileage may vary, etc.

"Really, aside from making kids act oddly because of a lie, we're not sure why we want to do this, but let's."

 

[Gurdur]

Altruism is merely any behavior which benefits another being more than it benefits the actor.

You've simply evaded your conflation there. That, BTW, is a circular argument.

It's not a complex behavior

Oh, but it is , it most definitely is, in humans. Observe all the different anthropological studies. Very complex behaviour, both individual and social indeed. Self-altering, self-moddleling, etc.

and declaring that what makes bees altruistic is not what makes altruistic is needlessly anthropcentirc.

IOW, you inisist on sticking to your conflation despite evidence to the contrary. That's a political and a rhetorical argument, not a scientific one; enough hard neuropsychological evidence exists to show worlds apart between humans and bees, not just worlds apart but galaxies apart.

There are altruistic behaviors in communial insects, in fact, it's the basis for their communal life. There are altruistic behaviors in apes, who do not lie to their children about Santa, and there were presumably altruistic behaviors in our hominid ancestors long before they lied about Santa to their children.

Almost right but essentially wrong. There were the components at hand, but not the final synergistic effect of complexity; you confuse components with finished product; another fallacy of components.

I am a student of biology. I'll have my degree at the end of the summer, thank you.

Bachelor degree, I assume? In which particular program? After all, the movement of protons over the cell-wall of the chloroplast is unlikely to be of help here.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You've simply evaded your conflation there. That, BTW, is a circular argument.




Oh, but it is , it most definitely is, in humans. Observe all the different anthropological studies. Very complex behaviour, both individual and social indeed. Self-altering, self-moddleling, etc.





IOW, you inisist on sticking to your conflation despite evidence to the contrary. That's a political and a rhetorical argument, not a scientific one; enough hard neuropsychological evidence exists to show worlds apart between humans and bees, not just worlds apart but galaxies apart.



Almost right but essentially wrong. There were the components at hand, but not the final synergistic effect of complexity; you confuse components with finished product; another fallacy of components.



Bachelor degree, I assume? In which particular program? After all, the movement of protons over the cell-wall of the chloroplast is unlikely to be of help here.

I'm sorry, but I am not rightly able to comprehend the confusion of ideas required to issue your objections.

 

[kittynh]

This is an article I wrote for Skepchick. I was really honored when I found that skeptic groups have been using my article as a guide for confused parents.

Honestly, not every child is raised with Santa. My 2 daughters appear to have survived, and we still had a LOT of fun during the holidays. If anything they had a deeper richer holiday experience than a child just exposed to Santa.

http://www.skepchick.org/6.15.06/parenting.html

 

[RandFan]

I'm quite open to evidence that the fantasy is healthy for children, but a New York Times article about a sample of physchological opinions isn't evidence.

I've debated this issue many times and I've never seen any data that even remotely suggested that the fantasy was harmful. I'll try and dig up more on the positive effects. Do you have any data that demonstrates that this fantasy or any for that mater is per se harmful, potentially harmful or that pediatricians in any number warn against it? I don't think such a thing exists.

I am sorry that you so easily dismissed the article. While it isn't by an means absolute proof of anything is far more than what is being offered in the reverse.

Personally, I'm predisposed to think that it's not a particularly big deal either way.

Yeah, I think most are. Santa Claus is a hot button issue and if there were data that showed a harmful correlation I think it likely that many if not most skeptics would know about it. JMO.

"Really, aside from making kids act oddly because of a lie, we're not sure why we want to do this, but let's."

I did it for the same reason I took my kids to Disneyland. It was exciting and fun.

ID, I hope you are not one of their parents who will punish a child who will take a child to task for having an imaginary friend.

 

[kittynh]

silly wabbits....

argue all you want, but my little skeptics are all the proof I need.

oh and both my daughters had (have) beloved stuffed animals that were "real" to them.

Mr.Bunny Rabbit and Foxy were respected members of the family, simply because the need for a comfort "friend" is totally different than the Santa factor. Almost all children have a stuffed animal/blanket that they become attached to. Not all children have Santa. Tolerance is very good to teach at an early age. And most children (I do teach preschool) while they enjoy fantasy KNOW the difference between pretend and real at a VERY early age. All the 3 year olds are very aware that Barney is just a man in a suit PRETENDING and that Dora the Explorer is just a cartoon someone has drawn. They get PRETEND versus REAL.

Give the kids some credit for being smarter than you think! they KNOW fantasy is PRETEND at age 3.