Children coping alone

[Taramere]

Channel 4 (UK) are airing a 4 part fly on the wall documentary to find out happens when children are left to their own devices.

 

Ten boys and ten girls - all aged between 8 and 11 - are placed in two separate "villages" for a fortnight. Their parents watch the activities on CCTV. Chaperones are on hand (also watching the CCTV) to intervene in the event that any child's safety is seriously compromised.

 

This is the first episode for anyone who wants to see:

 

http://www.channel4.com/catchup-player/player.htm?brandId=boys-and-girls-alone&contractId=44509&episodeId=1

 

It's almost an hour long, so brief summary: Girls manage quite well as far as cooking goes, but divide quickly into two separate factions. Lots of bitching ensues. The boys spend the first day having water fights and eating dry pasta and beans.

 

Day two: Meetings are held by the children in the two separate villages. There's some attempt to draw up rules. Leaders attempt to emerge in both villages, but encounter resistance. Lots of tears are shed. The boys, in particular, are missing their mothers and wanting to return home.

 

Questions:

 

1. Is this a useful lesson to demonstrate to parents what happens when children are left alone, or is it unthinkable that any rational adult wouldn't accurately predict the outcome of such a situation?

 

2. Is this experiment justified in that it could emphasise to children why adults need to be in charge, or is it unacceptably abusive to conduct an experiment like this and go on to air it on national television?

 

Generally, what do people think about this experiment?

[Geishawhelk]

I find this bizarre, because it's not the first time this kind of experiment has been carried out.

And I have no idea what conclusion the other experiment drew....

 

The sad thing is, the children had no primary set of ground-rules to guide them as a starter.

 

I really can't imagine what benefit this documentary has, other than to prove that children need boundaries, rules, guidance, discipline and parameters.

It seems to be a message to parents about correct parenting, using children as guinea pigs.

It makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I blame William Golding.

[hotgurl]

there was a show on ABC I think like this called Kids' ranch or something. Where they put all these kids into a ranch and divided up into groups and basically let them create their own society.

[amaysngrace]

It's almost an hour long, so brief summary: Girls manage quite well as far as cooking goes, but divide quickly into two separate factions. Lots of bitching ensues. The boys spend the first day having water fights and eating dry pasta and beans.

 

Day two: Meetings are held by the children in the two separate villages. There's some attempt to draw up rules. Leaders attempt to emerge in both villages, but encounter resistance. Lots of tears are shed. The boys, in particular, are missing their mothers and wanting to return home.

 

Questions:

 

1. Is this a useful lesson to demonstrate to parents what happens when children are left alone, or is it unthinkable that any rational adult wouldn't accurately predict the outcome of such a situation?

 

2. Is this experiment justified in that it could emphasise to children why adults need to be in charge, or is it unacceptably abusive to conduct an experiment like this and go on to air it on national television?

 

Generally, what do people think about this experiment?

 

I'd say it is fairly predictable. The girls bitching and the boys playing and eating uncooked food.

 

Is it meant for them to appreciate their parents more? Or to take them down a notch when approaching adolescence?

 

Or does it show bad parenting because nobody prepared their children on what to expect and on how to lead?

[Trialbyfire]

Without watching the episode(s) and basing my post on the conclusions drawn in the opening post, is this so different than an adult society?

 

I don't know what the creators of this show intended beyond another reality TV and its rating/entertainment value. I do agree that the outcome is predictable.

 

An experiment like this would only be worth any study in human nature, if all the children were raised the same way, with the same lifeskills or not, taught to them. If it reflects anything, it reflects that little girls are raised with genderized skills, where little boys tend to be pampered, raised with little to no practical lifeskills.

 

On the otherhand, if the show were to focus on how to nail together a treehouse, perhaps the boys could show their lifeskills too.

[Taramere]

Is it meant for them to appreciate their parents more? Or to take them down a notch when approaching adolescence?

 

I'm not sure. I think some of the parents were hoping that it would teach them appreciation, others were hoping that it would give an opportunity to exercise some independence. One little boy was desperate to go home on the second day. His mother went along to the house to see him, and he was clinging onto her saying that he hated it, and wanted to go home. She told him to go back in and give it a bit more of a chance.

 

The next day (I think) all the parents went in to see their kids, clear up some of the mess etc. Most of the kids were clinging onto their parents, but the little boy whose mother had visited the day before froze her out and didn't want her to touch him.

 

Or does it show bad parenting because nobody prepared their children on what to expect and on how to lead?

 

The programme didn't reveal much about how the parents briefed their children before they went in. I have a feeling that some of the parents were (unrealistically) optimistic that their children would shine/bloom in that environment.

 

Also, the programme conveyed that certain children had put pleaded with their parents to let them participate in the show. One little red-haired girl had been getting picked on a lot at school, and she thought this would be a chance for her to show schoolfriends another side to her. She spend most of the first episode in tears.

 

If the programme is typical of Channel 4 reality shows, as the series progresses it'll cherrypick various touchy-feely moments to demonstrate how the children bloom as they learn new skills. The little boy who so desperately wanted to go home by the second day was removed by his mother about a day later.

[blind_otter]

there was a show on ABC I think like this called Kids' ranch or something. Where they put all these kids into a ranch and divided up into groups and basically let them create their own society.

 

Kid Nation. There was a big to-do about it when they came out with the show because some people thought it was unethical to leave children alone for such a period of time.

 

One thing comes to mind, though.

 

Lord of the Flies. Poor, poor Piggy.

[Geishawhelk]

That's why I said I blame William Golding. With you blind_otter.

[amaysngrace]

His mother went along to the house to see him, and he was clinging onto her saying that he hated it, and wanted to go home. She told him to go back in and give it a bit more of a chance.

 

The next day (I think) all the parents went in to see their kids, clear up some of the mess etc. Most of the kids were clinging onto their parents, but the little boy whose mother had visited the day before froze her out and didn't want her to touch him.

 

Of course he didn't want her near him. She is being a bad mother. She probably promised him to give it a try and if it doesn't work out he could leave. She lied. She may also be so into the hooplah of her child being singled out that she is ignoring what he wants so that she can have her wants met. It has probably opened up a world of recognition and conversation for her.

 

The programme didn't reveal much about how the parents briefed their children before they went in. I have a feeling that some of the parents were (unrealistically) optimistic that their children would shine/bloom in that environment.

 

Possibly. But if their children were to have their best shot of blooming then the parents should have briefed them in a realistic manner, don't you think?

 

Also, the programme conveyed that certain children had pleaded with their parents to let them participate in the show. One little red-haired girl had been getting picked on a lot at school, and she thought this would be a chance for her to show schoolfriends another side to her. She spend most of the first episode in tears.

 

Again bad parenting. Why is a child her age being bullied at school? Where is the involvement of the parent? Where is the parent's head at if they throw a minnow to a pool of sharks? Shouldn't they tackle first things first? Those parents are too accomodating and are placing that child in harm's way in allowing this child to make decisions without having done their part first. The child is a child. This decision was not solely hers. Or was it?

 

The little boy who so desperately wanted to go home by the second day was removed by his mother about a day later.

 

Perfect. This is what I would have done.

 

This has struck my curiosity. I have an hour to spare. I think I will watch it.

[Ariadne]

Hey,

 

Can't wait to see the episode. I like the idea.

 

I just saw the clips, and I didn't like some of the interactions between parents and children. It seemed like the kind of abusive relationship.

 

Children behave according to their personalities and the way they were brought up. You can't tell by ten kids.

 

For what I read in your OP, it seems like the show is to raise awareness that children should be controlled and they are a bunch of thugs.

[amaysngrace]

I could not watch it.

 

The message said "sorry you have to live in the UK or the Republic of Ireland to access Channel 4".

 

[Taramere]

Hey,

 

Can't wait to see the episode. I like the idea.

 

But unfortunately....

 

The message said "sorry you have to live in the UK or the Republic of Ireland to access Channel 4".

 

Ah, okay. Well here's a review from The Times

 

The case against children was, meanwhile, persuasively made by Boys and Girls Alone, a follow-up to the show a few years ago in which 11-year-old boys were left on their own in an attempt to see if William Golding got it right in Lord of the Flies. This excuse this time was to see if the boys behaved better or worse than the girls when freed of parents and their tiresome rules. They certainly behaved differently.

 

Such anarchy was loosed upon the village the boys were dumped in, that one of the brighter sparks, a canny Scot who imagined himself a leader, had to convene a meeting to draw up laws concerning the use and misuse of water guns. Now all they had to do was work out how to cook a meal.

 

The girls in the neighbouring hamlet got the eating thing sorted quickly but soon formed themselves into a hierarchy of cliques. The top dogs - or prize bitches - were a pair of 11-year-olds who made it their purpose to bully and scare the others. Some of their psychological torture was, admittedly, quite inspired, for instance decorating the eight-year-olds' cottage with spooky slogans such as “Died on the toilet. Help! Why did this happen to me?”

 

In these children's faces you could see enough sourness, greed, insecurity and temper to populate a future generation of soap operas. For Channel 4 to persuade parents that it would be beneficial for their offspring to have their immaturity and vulnerability recorded for posterity and public entertainment was quite simply irresponsible. The kids need to wait a few years and hire themselves a lawyer.

 

So generally - yes Ariadne, the Times agrees that the aim of the show was to illustrate the thuggery of children when left unsupervised. The programme makers shy away from Lord of the Flies comparisons (not surprisingly) and have touted the show as being more about questioning whether today's children are too mollycoddled.

 

One example which the show made much of was that a 9 year old boy filled his pot noodle up from the cold tap instead of using the kettle. I thought it was somewhat unfair to suggest that a 9 year old who avoids using a kettle is a sign of him being mollycoddled. It would seem more likely that he's been told at some point (by his parents) that he can't it unsupervised....which would seem fair enough to me, at that age.

[Ariadne]

So generally - yes Ariadne, the Times agrees that the aim of the show was to illustrate the thuggery of children when left unsupervised. The programme makers...about questioning whether today's children are too mollycoddled.

 

Ah. And it seems like they hand picked their targets. Those children seemed not happy with their parents. One wiped the kiss away from his face and so on.

[Taramere]

Ah. And it seems like they hand picked their targets. Those children seemed not happy with their parents. One wiped the kiss away from his face and so on.

 

The kiss-wiper was being a typical little Brit boy really. "Ugh mum...don't kiss me in front of these people...it's embarrassing" kind of thing. Though if a kiss on the cheek from his mum is embarrassing, I can't imagine the mortification for him as 2.5 million people watched him sitting on his bed crying for his mother. On the other hand, the rest of them were in much the same condition.

 

The little boy who froze his mother out when the parents came to visit seemed unhappy in general. When the other boys drew up a list of rules and pinned it on the wall, he pulled it down, ripped it in half, proclaimed "anarchy" and started running amok.

 

None of the others were interested in going down that route with him. Instead, they taped the rules back together, put them back up on a wall and decided that it was time to "police" the anarchist. One of the had a rake in his hand....like one of the ogre-hunting peasants in Shrek.

[blind_otter]

The little boy who froze his mother out when the parents came to visit seemed unhappy in general. When the other boys drew up a list of rules and pinned it on the wall, he pulled it down, ripped it in half, proclaimed "anarchy" and started running amok.

 

Reminds me of Ainsworth's ambivalently attached baby in her experiments.

[Taramere]

Reminds me of Ainsworth's ambivalently attached baby in her experiments.

 

Yeah. The programme didn't really explore the mother's response to that - other than that she said something like "that's not very nice...all the other children are hugging their mothers." Thing was, though, that when she'd visited him the day before, he'd been clinging to her like a vine asking her to take him out of there. She wouldn't - which sounds completely cruel, but I think she was just really confused about what to do. Thinking that if she just took him out as soon as he said he didn't like it, she'd be giving him a message about not sticking at anything.

 

When she said "that's not very nice..." about the freezing out thing, he said "well you don't listen.." and (crucially, I think) gave her the message that he felt she had lied when she said that if he really didn't like it he could leave. He wasn't buying the "well, I'll decide when I think you really don't like it...I'm not going to agree to it just because you say you don't like it."

 

A common audience reaction to the programme was "ludicrous that a 9 year old can't even boil a kettle." I'm pretty sure that at that age I had never boiled a kettle either. The programme's stated aims include trying to figure out whether today's child is too wrapped in cotton wool. I wonder if some of the UK audience criticising the children's lack of independence are kidding themselves about what they had and hadn't learned to do at that age.

 

I was pretty impressed, for instance, that an eleven year old girl was able to make spaghetti bolognaise for the rest of the children. At that age, I'd have been able to put a few badly cut, overfilled sandwiches together, and that would have been about it.

[blind_otter]

A common audience reaction to the programme was "ludicrous that a 9 year old can't even boil a kettle." I'm pretty sure that at that age I had never boiled a kettle either. The programme's stated aims include trying to figure out whether today's child is too wrapped in cotton wool. I wonder if some of the UK audience criticising the children's lack of independence are kidding themselves about what they had and hadn't learned to do at that age.

 

While it's true that young children in indigenous societies tend to be more competent and self directed when compared to children from modern western societies at similar ages, I think it only makes sense when you consider that the life expectancy in those places where children are more mature earlier is also shorter. If that sentence made any sense.

 

If you're expected to be wedded and bedded by age 15, and managing a home while popping out babies by 16, and dead from overwork by the time you're 35, then you'd damn well better know how to cook a meal when you've reach the double digits.

[Tomcat33]

This is less about children and the psychological implications of such experiment and moreso about a battle to survive and surpass the reality tv war that advertisers will exclusively feed into these days.

 

As a provider of tv programming in the current climate, the key goal is to come up with a breaking new concept. This should be a concept that has not been conceptualized nor captured for the mass consumption of tv audiences, therefore ensuring a good profitability return on the experiment. Series shows get pulled from the air constantly, never have I seen so many shows introduced and pulled off the air in such short periods of time giving them a very short shelf-life to test with audiences. But reality tv seems to be a constant fixture that can hold its own provided it taps into a reality that is biting and taboo-like, and if it can trick the audience into thinking they will gain some real insight into human behaviour even BETTER.

 

It's not about the plot of what reality shows are based on these days, it is about a race to come up with "fresh" content that has not been tapped into. A Lord of the Flies concept was simply not done yet. In terms of the experiment itself completely USELESS. If there is one thing that reality shows are rich in these days, is the manipulation of said reality through some form of intervention, pretty much the same reality we see day in day out of anyone and anything that is semi-popular. What's is reality anymore?

 

In order for an experiment like this to have any sort of valid conclusive outcome you need to remove the "show" component, then I would be more than willing to discuss the interaction of what we see in terms of how children adapt to a situation like that.

[Taramere]

This is less about children and the psychological implications of such experiment and moreso about a battle to survive and surpass the reality tv war that advertisers will exclusively feed into these days.

 

The show's attracted lots of criticism for that. The programme makers have, of course, issued denials against the charge that it's nothing more than cynical exploitation of children...and they persist in the spin that it's about finding out "who will create a better world? Boys or girls?"

 

For me, the only thing that it usefully addresses (and I agree that it's unlikely to result in any findings that justify the exploitation of, and potential damage to, the children involved) is the question of whether children are capable of more than we give them credit for as regards independent living. Cooking, cleaning, organising themselves etc.

 

It might well be that both parents and children end up being surprised by how competent the children can be in certain areas. That in that respect, some of the children will gain both confidence and competence from the exercise. But ultimately yes...it's a show designed to boost up ratings. There are surely better ways of helping children to help themselves than throwing them in at the deep end, filming the entire thing and releasing it for public viewing.

[Trialbyfire]

It might well be that both parents and children end up being surprised by how competent the children can be in certain areas. That in that respect, some of the children will gain both confidence and competence from the exercise. But ultimately yes...it's a show designed to boost up ratings. There are surely better ways of helping children to help themselves than throwing them in at the deep end, filming the entire thing and releasing it for public viewing.

I agree with the bolded portion.

 

I also believe that some children will excel. A hungry human being, whether child or adult, will find a way to eat, one way or another.

 

I also wonder if the parents have put the children on this show, to illustrate their own "incredible" parenting talents. If that's the case, it's so wrong to believe that your children are an extension of your personal validation and self-esteem. That's not healthy for either party.

[grogster]

I would be interested in observing gender differences in social organization, hierarchy formation, clique development and the balance between cooperation and competition in each village.

 

While the social setting is artificial, the kids aren't. I would be curious to see how each group forms, adapts, governs and evolves.