Stop it, Sparrow. The children might be affected by your face!
“We cannot help but
wonder how the move from only positive faces to an increasing number of
negative faces impacts on how children play.” While acknowledging that the
expressions are realistic facial expressions, he said that pales in comparison
to what negativity and conflict could mean to children.
“Instead
of focusing on realistic expressions, it may be worthwhile to increase the
variability of expressions,” Bartneck said. “A comic style expression is
sufficient to convey a full spectrum of emotions and intensities.”
-
Dr. Christoph Bartneck, robot expert.
University of Canterbury, NZ.
This study suggests that there is or could be a
link between a child’s happiness or behavioural patterns and the facial
expression of a yellow piece of plastic inspired by a beloved film character.
Yes, robot expert, Dr. Christoph Bartneck made the news today for suggesting that
it is indeed possible for the increasingly “upset facial expressions” of a Lego
man to influence what negativity and conflict mean to children.
As a 90’s child, I was very much a part of the era
of the Terminator action figures, Action Man, Jurassic Park, Die Hard, etc.
Lego allowed us to build fighter jets and missiles with their grey pieces. We
constantly made faux-gun noises with our mouths – pishaun,pishaun – as we battled our enemies. You talk of an increase
in the idea of conflict due to these characters based on massively successful
movie franchises? Wouldn’t your argument be a little less irritating if you
focused on the movie plots themselves? Because what I understand from your
findings is that you feel that there is an increase in the idea of good v evil
and a rise in conflict plots due to the fact that even the good guys are not smiling?
What you are telling me Christoph – do you mind if I call you Christoph, I feel
like we are on first name basis already – is that due to the fact that Lego Jack
Sparrow looks slightly grimaced, a child will therefore, be angry or upset, and furthermore, that this would reflect their
playing patterns? Oh Christoph, Christoph, Christoph.... Seriously, dude?
I am quite amused that you spent as long as you did
on this ‘research’ because this is a pile of hot shit. At what point do you
stop looking at human interaction and immediate family influences and focus on plastic as a source of
behavioural influence? Why did you think this was a good idea?
I played religiously with the action figures that
my parents were nice enough to provide for my brother and me and not once did
the look on Action Man or Hulk Hogan’s face influence my mood or behaviour
towards life because THEY ARE TOYS. They are toys, Christoph, they are plastic
and despite what you think, kids are not that dumb. The look on Harry Potter’s
face as a yellow Lego toy bears no correlation to how a child plays. When in your
study did a child admit to feeling a bit down because Harry Potter wasn’t smiling?
Or to somehow recreating or creating a violent scene based on the toy’s facial
expression? I had a terminator action figure, passed down to me by my brother
when he moved on to big boy toys. This terminator doll was clad in leather, had
an assault rifle in hand and had the side of his face ripped off exposing
muscle and metal! He wasn’t smiling. It didn’t cause me to play more
negatively, whether alone or with friends. It didn’t cause me to feel any type
of way because I knew it was a toy. It was a toy based on a hit movie that I
loved. Do you see my point Christoph? Do you see why this has been a wasted
effort and a pointless study? Do you see?
This was my favourite toy for a long time... Analyse this!
Never mind, actual human influence
on a child, never mind exposure to the wrong types of influencers in a child’s
life... We haven’t even gotten to the
bottom of the violent video games debate. No. Never mind social influences, Lego...
Lego is the problem.
Girl bye!
No comments:
Post a Comment