Wow. A bit too far? criminalise Japanese Anime/Manga fans in the UK?

[Ghost Kitty~]

"OMG they killed kenny those bastards"

Hmm which is why those people try drugs... :/ To be "cool" and whatnot...

 

[Karlotto]

Yep. The ironic thing is, those that pursue something purely because it`s "bad", usually end up being disinterested in it afterward.

 

[Ghost Kitty~]

Well if they were only interested in it because it was bad then there wasnt much basis for their like anyway... I suppose drugs continue here where the others fail with how they make the user addicted...

 

[Karlotto]

Yeah I forgot that. My theory does not apply to drugs kids. They will get you hooked, and the man will HUNT YOU DOWN!

 

[Ghost Kitty~]

Though i wonder about the effects of anime and stuff compared to that xD

 

[~SnowAngel~]

Even in that class he has many friends. I noticed that as they keep talking over mobile phone and stuff. Yet they can't have any bad influence on him. I know him, and the reason he doesn't get influenced is cause he knows what he wants to grow up and he knows how to get it.

Very true~ if people have a solid identity for themselves, they're less likely to shift important things in their life. Being responsible and all that is also part of that.

Kid telling their parents about their problems is again connected to the behavior. If they were always open kid will be more open to them too and will talk about problems more. But still, yes, there are things kids wouldn't talk about with they parents.

Also true~ A well-adjusted child will go to the parent for various things depending on how good the relationship is. Still, there's always going to be a limit to what they'll share :P

My theory is that kids who get affected much by their peers are the ones who don't see their parents as role models. And all the things they dont pick up from their parents, they will do from their peers and TV/Internet.

mmm it's actually a mix. Younger people learn different behaviors and not realize where it came from. Some people argue that some sources explicitly do that. (violent games, tv, bad friends, etc.) The research leans toward that it can be positive if used right, but negative under other conditions. (most of the time it's in the extremes). A common idea for some theorists is that children learn to socialize primarily from their parents. (what's okay/not okay to do, sharing, how to behave, etc.) Whether or not the parent does this depends on their parenting style, and if the parents are in sync of how they parent.

All those peers (so all kids) have their own parents, and the reason why they are like they are. And that again comes from how they parents are like. If all parents succeed in teaching their kids good values, u think there would be a problem?

That's what many people thought, but I've found that even in the best environment, there can be a few exceptions. :/
Some children will reject the values of the parent, while some may find values outside of what the parents value (or don't).
hmmm for ex: me and a few friends were raised as mostly homeschooled. (which plenty of people argue is better than public, for lots of reasons I can agree with.) I've thought of it as great before, but now part of me would say I'd rather be in a school with other people. The pros and cons greatly vary per school, so sometimes it's worth it or not. Either way, I'm veering away from how I was raised. (I think it's important to keep in mind how unique each person is. The DNA of a given person cannot match 100% of another, I think it has been compared to maybe 50 years or so? not really sure)

-----

(Personality disorders, depression, schizophrenia etc.). I hardly see studies that focus on these aspects.

I've done projects on these before~ I could dig up a few articles in my school's database if you'd like :3

It`s always the people around them growing up, which like I said, does affect them, but you can raise someone in a perfect environment and still have them grow up to be sociopathic killers

Conversely, you could put someone in a horrible environment and they could grow up to be a rich successful individual.
It all depends on how they let things affect them.

This is called Resilience, here's more about it straight from my book:

(if you want to read the mentioned peoples' story, let me know, it's very short)

Spoiler

Are there certain characteristics that make children like Alice Walker resilient? Are there other characteristics that make children lash out against society, like Ted Kaczynski, who became a killer despite his intelligence and education? After analyzing research on this topic, Ann Master and her colleagues (sources cited here) concluded that a number of individual factors influence resiliency, such as good intellectual functioning. In addition, (refers to pic) their families and resources outside the children's families tend to show certain features. For exampl,e resilient children are likely to have a close relationship to a caring parent figure and bonds to caring adults outside the family.

(then in starts talking about social policy, future research, and what lower-economic families are exposed to with some correlations.)

 

[Hinode]

Hmm, doesn't it exist rare cases in everything? Wouldn't that mean that there always is someone who breaks the "right way"?

I usually tell my friends alot more than what i tell my parents even though i trust my parents alot and had an extremely good childhood

 

[~SnowAngel~]

[MENTION=38786]Hinode[/MENTION]; A few things to keep in mind about research and theories~
Only case-studies focus on an individual basis for wtv they're researching. The more broad ones are looking for common factors. They may find some exceptions, but it's not considerable enough unless those exceptions are somehow significant.
Some theories don't have to be right, regardless of how much attention it gets. (ex: sigmund freud psychosexual theory

Scholar people often qualify their statements. Ex: most people in x condition experience __.
Side-effects May include. (in a drug advertisement).
to make a statement such as "all people __" would need some extremely good evidence.

Bias is also an important thing that's often criticized especially in theory, which I've seen my book do that~ their point isn't to make fun of someone or say they're wrong, it's to tell the world that they may be onto something.

 

[Hinode]

[MENTION=17020]~SnowAngel~[/MENTION]; So, a theory can basically just mean 90% of all people in the world? How do you get those 90% anyways? Just take 100 people and ask them basically depends on where you ask, right? If you go to a place where you can adopt children and ask 10 of them how many that are homeless and then say that 100% of all the people in this world are homeless is a damn joke, isn't it? :/
Never really understood how people can get that information from the very beginning...
Also, i took an extremely bad example but at least i hope that it's easy to understand what i mean :/

 

[Karlotto]

You can remedy that by asking *more people. Simple in theory, hard to put into practice.

*means very, very many.

And as for the study links go Snow, it`s alright. I wouldn`t want to put you through the trouble. Thanks for the offer though. (truth is I`m not really in the mood for reading right now. I`ve been up for quite a while. )

 

[Hinode]

[MENTION=26533]Kionea[/MENTION]; I suppose, but still... people can lie, people maybe say something random to get the people who ask them to leave them alone. Is it trustworthy? It's not like i got a better idéa, but still.
If someone were to ask me something that i don't really care about i wouldn't be serious at all. I would say anything it takes for them to leave me alone. The fact that i don't like people doesn't help with that either. The quicker i get them away from me the calmer i get.
And yes, i'm one individual out of god knows how many, but i wouldn't be surprised if alot of people answer whatever it takes to get rid of random people asking them questions, especially if they're stressed (hurrying to work/home for example).

And if they were to do some kind of quiz on the internet some people would probably just mark whatever they feel like and call it done.

 

[~SnowAngel~]

[MENTION=38786]Hinode[/MENTION]; I didn't feel like naming or explaining the methods, so read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychological_research_methods

Researching people isn't about just asking questions to participants, nor do they make over-exaggerated conclusions. People heavily rely on research to learn about facts/laws of life. (biology, measurements, medicine, economics, social problems, etc).
An official psychology test wouldn't be something like taking a test at home and sending it to them. It might not even be a series of questions. (it depends on what they're studying). One interesting example is the Pre-operational Stage in cognitive development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLj0IZFLKvg
In this video, the child thinks the taller glass has more. Keep in mind that this is one example, they've tested hundreds of children that's only inside archived research.

o, a theory can basically just mean 90% of all people in the world?

No, that's not even the definition of a theory. (do you know the process of a study?) this might explain:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm

Spoiler

A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.

A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.

Keep in mind that just because something is taught in schools, it doesn't mean it's a fact. It also doesn't mean it's a lie either.

---

I should also say that researchers aren't doing this because they have to. They're interested in what they're researching, and their idea has to be approved by the overseers of psychology before they can begin testing.

 

[Hinode]

[MENTION=17020]~SnowAngel~[/MENTION]; First of all... Isn't there a difference between tests which have to do what you're speaking of and what i am speaking of? (those tests with questions). So if i were to do a test here on the internet and give it to you, would you believe that i'm dead serious with the test? Wouldn't it be harder to hide that if i were to compare with that child test on that video for example? Writing answers on a paper/on the internet is easier to lie about your opinions than what it is if you got a test which require you to do physical stuff.
The reason to why i don't argue about those physical tests is because i know jack sh*t about that, but i do know that some people won't take tests on paper/internet seriously and how do you know that they just don't lie?
I could give another example from that movie with the kiddos. The girl that takes a guess on the tallest glass, didn't she just take the most logical answer that she could think of? Now give her a paper with 10 questions and see how many she will do before she gets bored of it and just want to get it done. And who knows, she might be one of those that actually take that test seriously then, but there are still people who doesn't.

To summarize it all: If you go to a place and do tests which force you do to something physical it's easier to see if you don't know what you're doing/if you're faking it than what it is to see if someone does that on a test written on a paper.

 

[~SnowAngel~]

Lies would be inconsistent with multiple tests -.-~ You've not been into the field of psychology at all, so please don't get angry at me for anything

 

[Hinode]

[MENTION=17020]~SnowAngel~[/MENTION]; I'm kinda talking about tests to prove a simple fact... not a test that is supposed to save the world from total annihilation or something serious like that. I can't go as far as you can because of my shitty English.

I'm done with this anyways, i'd just end up looking like a damn retard before someone at all begins to understand what i'm talking about

 

[Will98]

Parents are actually the least important to a child's social development. Research is beginning to point to that peers are far more important to what an individual is involved in or believes.

I remember a time when Parents where the most important thing in a child's development... :(

Kids and their idiotic peers, role models, choice of mentors and people whom they look up to..... but yeah, whatever.

[MENTION=17020]~SnowAngel~[/MENTION];

You stole the thread.....

Back to the original topic.

 

[Karlotto]

I understand what you`re saying Hinode, but I think you`re looking at this the wrong way. It`s not like they take random people off the street for these studies. They ask people if they want to participate and have them sign up for it. A random person off the street would probably give bullshit answers, but if you ask a person if they would like to partake in the test and they say yes, they probably won`t lie since they`re genuinely interested. And like Snow said, if someone does lie, it would show up on the results when compared to other subjects. (Though one does have to wonder what would happen if everyone except for a few lied...)