((Done by Wendy Dare, summer 91)) \fIPARENTS\FR February 1984 LOVE AND MARRIAGE PAGES 24-28 \fIWhose child is he, anyway?\fR Q: My problem is my unmarried sister-in-law. She THINKS that I should let her make the decisions about my six-month-old son's life. She ALSO BELIEVES he's gifted, and I'm AFRAID THAT when he gets older HER ASSUMPTION could hurt him if he's not overly smart. How can I politely tell her to knock it off? A: The first thing to REALIZE is that the baby is yours and your husbands's, not your sister-in-law's. Therefore, there is no intrinsic reason for you to feel threatened by her statements since you will be making all the decisions about your son. In her unmarried state, does she feel rejected and swept aside or is she single by choice? If she FEELS that she is missing something critical in not having a child of her own, her tendency may be to VIEW your son as a kind of substitute and to invest him with all her fantasies of how she would raise her own child. Her BELIEF that he is gifted would tend to support this interpretation. If you think back to your own life before marriage and the birth of your son, you might REMEMBER THINKING about what it would be like to have a baby. Those are widespread fantasies among both men and women, and it seems likely that your sister-in-law is expressing hers with respect to your son. You could encourage some personal talks about her own life and the EXPECTATIONS she would have for a child of her own. You or your husband might gently indicate that while you APPRECIATE her interest in her nephew, decision about him rest with you. You might even develop a kind of bantering tone when you deal with her specific suggestions. \fIShe's lost that loving feeling.\fR A: You do not indicate if your wife's loss of interest was sudden or a more gradual process that you BECAME AWARE of only a year and a half ago. Were there previous episodes of disinterest on her part, or on yours? Many aspects of a couple's relationship change when children arrive, and frequently their sexual relationship is a casualty of the altered patterns and increased responsibility. If, when YOU THINK ABOUT it, YOU REALIZE that her INTEREST DWINDLED over time, you might discuss with her the many changes your life together has gone through since the birth of your children. Of course, if her INTEREST DECLINED ABRUPTLY, then what you need to search for is some specific incident that precipitated her sexual withdrawal. Even without her detailing it for you, you could examine your own sexual activity. Sex in an extremely important part of marriage, and therefore it is worth conquering the difficulties involved in frankly discussing it. You might CONSIDER going away for a day or two alone together in order to talk out your mutual concerns. Sometimes, difficult problems yield SURPRISINGLY easily to real communication in an unhurried and nonpressured atmosphere. One caution, though: If you do go away to discuss these issues, plan to do other things too, so the episode doesn't become so HEAVY that you become MIRED IN THE WEIGHT OF YOUR DISCUSSION! My husband is not supportive of my plans. A: Taking on the responsibility of a baby can be scary, and your husband may be FOCUSING ON that to the exclusion of any other concern. It may be that the arrival of the baby represents so much change for him that he cannot easily ACCEPT other changes in life. Sometimes people facing difficult alterations in their lives try to restrict all other changes to the minimum as a way of maintaining some basic stability. But his reaction probably also relates to the nature of the changes that are occurring. People who are not fully sure of themselves have difficulty ACCEPTING the dependency of others. Your husband has been ACCUSTOMED to having a self-sufficient wife. Previously he did not have to ACCEPT your dependence, and he could also be dependent on you to some degree. A baby's entrance into that situation adds a dependent individual. That can be quite a challenge to someone who may appear to be surer of himself than he actually feels. In such a case, the FOCUS OF THE ANXIETY can be on the wife who is becoming dependent, rather than on the baby. If this analysis fits your husband's and your situation, then it might be important to reassure you husband that your dependency is indeed a temporary state. He may FEAR THAT you'll get used to--and come to LIKE--being at home with the baby and not go back to work. Since at this point that is not your PLAN, you might indicate that a skilled field offers a more permanent attraction to you than simply working at a job that you don't FIND satisfying, and, therefore, going back to school will likely result in you long-term employment. For the long term in your marriage, however, it would appear important to establish open communication about your mutual hopes and desires in an effort to develop a greater sense of partnership. pages 32-35 \fILove, Honor And Work Together\fR In yet another twist, some married couples are specifically hired together, for example, as a management-consultant team. Working with your husband offers many benefits, not the least of which is each of you UNDERSTANDS what the other's work life is like. But there are disadvantages as well. "The wife is usually recruited to work in the new venture since few start-ups can afford all the employees they need." One year after their marriage in 1973, Marsha Weinmann's husband DECIDED to start a landscaping business. At first, Marsha helped out in her free time--typing some letters for the business on her breaks at work or balancing the books in the evenings at home. The one difficulty Marsha has is with friends, family, and clients who can't understand her role in the business. "I THINK it has to do with my working at home. The women in the neighborhood can't UNDERSTAND why I can't take off to the park. They don't REALIZE that the business is an equal partnership. I'm not my husband's employee." Couples who run a business together have unique problems to work out. Many FIND it difficult to change hats from work to home life and to set aside any time to relax. "We don't find the proper means of relaxation." Although a business can CLAIM ALL OF YOUR TIME AND THOUGHT, giving in to its demands can damage your personal relations. At the seminars she chairs on family businesses, Katy Danco urges couples to develop relaxation goals as well as business goals. Difficulties with the business can't be turned off at 5 p.m. "If it's doing well, he FEELS good and proud of himself," says Pamela Harrington about the bar she and her husband own in South Dakota. "If it's not, he FEELS AS IF something were wrong with him." "The only way we've been able to manage is to make sure home is a place away from work," says Becky. Other couples DECIDE in advance whether the dinner they have at home will be a family dinner or a family-business dinner. Yet another approach is to set aside a specific period when business will not be discussed, such as from the time the couple arrive home each evening until the children are put to bed. While at home personal time is important, at work the couple must clarify their professional roles so that they don't get involved in destructive competition. "I don't KNOW of a successful couple who compete with each other," says Katy Danco. She advises couple to each identify their strong points and SEE HOW they can complement each other in the business. At Mrs. Fields Cookies, a successful national network of cookie stores with corporate headquarters in Park City, Utah, co-owners Debbi and Randy Fields have done just that. Her husband, Randy, who also has his own financial-consulting firm, handles the financial side. "We try not to step on each other's toes," says Debbi, "but if one has AN IDEA about something the other person is doing, we talk about it. We tend to talk business most of the time, but we love it." Otherwise, life could be difficult for the Fieldses as well as for their 600 employees. "Professional managers are WARY OF working for a husband-and-wife team," acknowledges Randy. "They're AFRAID OF being caught in the crossfire of a divorce situation." As a business becomes more successful, new emotional issues arise. "But eventually, the husband may take a larger role and the wife may become jealous." As the business develops, the husband may FEEL he is doing his wife a favor by hiring other people to take over some of her responsibilities--but she MAY feel pushed out. In the case of Mrs. Fields Cookies, Debbi is the chief executive and the visible symbol of the firm, while her husband works behind the scenes. This doesn't BOTHER Randy because, he explains, they have carefully worked out their individual roles. "We KNOW we are both important to the business." Couples who work together need to project a professional image so that their close relationship won't upset fellow workers or customers. One special-education teacher FOUND herself in the awkward position of having her husband as her boss when he was made the assistant school superintendent in charge of special education. They handled the situation between themselves by never talking about their jobs at home. But the teacher FOUND it more difficult to deal with her colleagues who also reported to her husband. "They EXPECTED me to answer for every little they disliked about the job he was doing," she says. "If someone comes to you KNOWING you have a direct line to your spouse, the boss, tell him or her that you don't talk business at home," advises Katy Danco. "Tell your colleague to talk directly to your spouse. Otherwise, you'll be caught in the middle, with RESENTMENT on both sides." Working with one's husband isn't for everyone. One woman who owned a store with her husband FOUND she got jealous whenever he talked to a female customer or took a woman business associate to lunch. \fIBanned Books\fR I ABHOR censorship. It insults my intelligence, erodes my personal independence, and limits my access to IDEAS and information. No one else, I BELIEVE, has a right to DECIDE for me what books I can read or what points of view may be expressed. So when I hear of numerous cases of attmepted censorship of school curricula and textbooks, my first reaction is one of DEEP CONCERN. Unfortunately, however, my personal VIEW of censorship is a little simplistic when it comes to materials used in schools. For example, some publishers of late have been issuing ethnic and racial "joke books" filled with crude stereotypes of Jews, blacks, Poles, white Protestants, etc. Do I WANT the librarians in my schools to show pornographic films or to purchase textbooks that are inaccurate, untruthful, or biased? When my staff and I begin making such DECISIONS, however, we FIND ourselves easing into the role of censor. Parents have every right to EXPECT that schools will exercise careful choice when selecting books and materials for children. But the standards of the school and any particular parent may differ widely. For example, those people who ADHERE to a strict biblical interpretation of the origins of life may object to the teaching of the concept of evolution in high school biology courses. WANTING to sell more books, publishers BELIEVE this can be accomplished by making them less specific or less complete and thus may omit the mention of the CONCEPT of evolution. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, however, a biology text that does not report the evidence on evolution is seriously deficient. Teachers, administrators, and school boards are caught in a dilemma. In their role as parent surrogates, they try to respect and support the VALUES of the child's home and the family. Yet in a sprawling nation like this there are vast differences in the VALUES espoused. Consequently, schools often seek to avoid controversy by removing or failing to use all but the most bland and balanced materials. Such timidity on the part of the schools may be the most serious form of censorship. Avoiding controversial material narrows the OUTLOOK of children and gives them an unrealistic VIEW of the world. One of the major functions of a good school, after all, is to teach children to acquire the full range of KNOWLEDGE needed for sound judgements. When school administrators bend over backward to avoid controversial books they may UNWITTINGLY back into hot criticism from \fIboth\fR left and right. Liberals accuse the schools of caution that borders on censorship, while conservatives like Mel and Norma Gabler, who run a conservative textbook-review service, claim schools try to influence children by using books that are too liberal. "Government force, through schools," claim the Gablers, "has gradually eliminated [banned, censored] practically all books that uphold, promote, or teach the basic VALUES upon which our nation was founded." That's a rather sweeping challenge to the judgment of the board members of America's 15,835 separate school districts and the principals and teachers in 86,682 school. I FIND that in daily practice public schools are more apt to be \fIconserving\fR institutions mirroring rather than challenging the values of the local culture. Yet we live in a time when the goals and IDEALS of our society are hotly debated. Because these VALUES are in flux, schools SEEM UNCERTAIN of what stand to take and the vacuum invites contradictory cries of censorship from left, right, and middle. In disentangling the complex issues of school censorship, sensible, concerned parents can be of enormous help. \fB1. Discuss complex IDEAS AND ISSUES with your child.\fB When differing VIEWPOINTS on social questions arise, use the occasion to discuss these with your child. Young children SEEK security by CONFIRMING things as definitely right or wrong and need gradually to discover the complexity of many issues that leads fair-minded people to differing conclusions. When such discussions are a part of the natural, informal curriculum of the home, it is easier for children to confront and examine divergent views as their schooling progresses. \fB2. Encourage pluralism.\fR Regardless of the makeup of your own community, you do your child a great favor by helping him or her grow up with an ENLARGING APPRECIATION of the ways and views of people of different ethnic, racial, religious, and national origins and cultures. Children who gradually come to understand human diversity have a great advantage in adult life as they leave their immediate home ground. ENCOURAGE school materials and curricula that reflect the rich pluralism in our society. Schools that incorporate this broader outlook in their curriculum have a firmer base for interpreting and deflecting the thrusts of the censors. \fB3. Be alert to blind spots.\fB If a school says they don't use multiethnic textbooks, for example, because all the residents are of one race, REMIND the school authorities of the short-sightedness of such ethnocentrism. \fB5. Confer with teachers.\fR As a parent, you should discuss directlly with teachers and principals any QUESTIONS you have about particular instructional materials or curricula. At least half of the so-called censorship cases are really questions of the appropriateness of the materials for children of a certain age. A good novel for the tenth grade can cause an uproar if placed in the hands of a sixth grader. Similarly, you may be able to help a concerned neighbor UNDERSTAND that some controversial books are better used in class under a teacher's guidance than simply read by students unaided. Such matters must be talked out in public. When communities have such discussions, the open, responsible expression of strongly held VIEWS serves as a valuable lesson for children growing up in a democracy. pages 67-70 & 149 \fISpeaking Of Sex\fr Over her husband's shoulder, the wife notices their four-year-old, watching wide-eyed and fascinated. HOW MUCH HAS THE CHILD SEEN OR UNDERSTOOD? What will it mean as the child grows up? For three years, beginning in 1978, Dr. Alvin A. Rosenfeld, formerly professor of psychiatry and director of training in child psychiatry at Stanford University in California, surveyed 425 upper-middle-class California families with children between the ages of two and ten. Rosenfeld's study focused on parental PERCEPTIONS of children's behavior with regard to sexual issues. He also studied the family atmosphere that develops around issues of intimacy and sexuality in early life. He observed the small, everyday exchanges, the unspoken ways that parents, children, and the culture at large interact and influence behavior and ATTITUDES toward modesty, openness, comfort, or anxiety about sexuality. Until now, much of what we've been told about how sexuality develops has been based on what doctors SAW in the families of troubled children. It's helpful--and reassuring--finally to SEE what happens in healthy, caring, and committed families like the ones in this survey. What these parents do is often different from what the experts tell them to do. Most of the time the children are allowed to stay in the parental bed until they're soothed, usually half an hour, or until they fall asleep. Most children are equally CONTENT to lie down next to either the mother or father or to snuggle between the two parents. About one third of the children prefer one side of the bed to the other, and then it's usually the mother's side. Some psychiatrists have speculated that choosing the mother's side is a sign of marital discord, but Rosenfeld found no evidence of that. Not SURPRISINGLY, younger children come to the parents' bed more often . With two-year-olds, who may have to climb out of a crib to reach the parents, it happens once a week to once a month. With nine-year-olds it may happen once or twice a year. Why do experts WORRY ABOUT this parent-child coziness? One fear is that once you let your child into your warm bed, you'll never get him back into his own. "Our research doesn't prove that taking a child into your bed is good or bad, only that it's common," says Rosenfeld. When doctors explore the history of an emotionally disturbed adult, they ofter FIND THAT there was "co-sleeping," as they call it, in the patient's childhood. Yet, it if's as common as this survey shows, it may be that something else, something disturbing, was happening in the parental bed of children who grew up to be disturbed adults. Even if nothing out of the way happened, being in the parents' bed can be too exciting for some young children. Parents do need to be AWARE of the young child who can't seem to lie still, is jumpy, nervous, or overstimulated by being in their bed. In an unhappy marriage, parents may use the child as a pawn; one of them may invite the child into bed in order to avoid sex with his or her partner. Or a newly divorced mother may WANT the child there because it's she, not the child, who's scared and lonely. "Somehow, the child SENSES that something is awry without KNOWING exactly what it is," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "It's impossible to KNOW how the actual behavior differs. Yet, the child SENSES in some way that he's being used. The RESULTING CONFUSION and EXCITEMENT can interfere with a child's ability to develop a coherent sense of who he is and lead to psychological difficulties." As Rosenfeld notes, there are reports from other doctors of children who've regressed to bed-wetting just to get out of the parents' bed. "The important thing is to be TUNED IN TO your child and to yourselves as separate human beings," Rosenfeld explains. "What counts is that you're AWARE OF what the child's needs are at that moment and the ways you as an individual feel most comfortable meeting those needs." When you do meet them, it's a major lesson in what love is about. \fB"The primal scene."\fR Rosenfeld reports that parents who are in tune with their own INNER PSYCHOLOGICAL LIFE are able to DETERMINE HOW to react to their own children even if their response does not follow the advice of a child-rearing text. There is one area about which parents and experts SEEM in total agreements, however, Rosenfeld says. They both WORRY ABOUT the young child who wanders into the parents' bedroom while his or her parents are making love. Psychiatrists have blamed the childhood viewing of the sex act--a situation Freud called "the primal scene"--for a long list of adult neuroses and psychoses. Yet it happens more often than most people REALIZE. Dr. Rosenfeld asked five separate groups of parents if they KNEW WHETHER their children had ever walked in on their lovemaking. The results ranged from 9 percent to 41 percent of parents answering yes, it had happened, usually just once. According to the parents in Rosenfeld's survey, it usually takes place when the child is between four and six years old, a time of great sexual curiosity that Freud called "the Oedipal age." Most children seem to have walked in by accident, but a few were DETERMINED to catch their parents. "She was hiding in the closet," one mother reported to Rosenfeld. Another parent tells of a young child who climbed up to the bedroom window to peek in. If the primal scene happens so frequently, are doctors right IN BELIEVING it's universally traumatizing? Dr. Aron Esman, professor of clinical psychiatry at Cornell University Medical College in New York City, did an important study of the psychiatric literature. In most of the case histories, the child UNDERSTOOD what he'd seen as something bad, hurtful, or violent. Yet, when Dr. Esman looked further into those case histories, he FOUND that there was violence in those families. The father beat the mother or the child or both; or he forced the mother into sex; or there was verbal abuse, yelling, cursing, name-calling. When children from this background described what they'd seen in their parents' bedroom as sadomasochistic, they may have been describing it very accurately for their own families. In less turbulent families, children may have a DIFFERENT SENSE of what they're seeing. "At best, the child will THINK THAT something enjoyable is going on, and he'll feel jealous or excluded," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "He may also THINK of lovemaking as wrestling. At worst, the child will feel frightened because he doesn't understand what's happening. \fBThe matter of privacy.\fR One moment doesn't make a childhood, but parents generally BELIEVE that lovemaking should be private event. Still, if a door is left unlocked or if a child forget to knock before entering, it's REASSURING TO KNOW that great numbers of children see this event without being damaged for life. Most parents manage to stay calm. Both are important values, part of a child's education on how to live in the family. When they are very little, children don't SEEM to have much interest in privacy. In their answers to Dr. Rosenfeld's questions, parents of little children paint a picture of a shame-free, clothes-free time. Suddenly, like a little Adam or Eve, the child notices that he is naked and that the parent is naked. Perhaps the child KNEW THAT all along, but now the parent KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS. For many parents, it's a confused, bitter-sweet time. The first embarrassment, with visitors and then with family members, comes with being seen using the bathroom. Typically, girls become UPSET ABOUT being caught without their clothes at around age four. With boys it happens around age five. In some families, parents say that it's the child, not they, who begins to be modest. One week a little girl doesn't MIND being seen undressed; the next week she's UPSET by it. Many times it's an early instance of influence of other children the same age. A mother who now prefers to dress in private explains, "I'm uncomfortable because my son stares at my body. It makes me WANT TO hide." When a child begins to show interest and curiosity, that's when almost all parents begin to cover up. In many families boys and girls may be bathed together until one of them is six or seven years old. Then the mother SEES OR SUSPECTS SOMETHING that disturbs her. Perhaps the little girl is staring at her brother's penis or reaching to touch. What does the child think then? "I've never met a child who BELIEVES being 'too old' is the real reason," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "The child FEELS THAT the parent is acting that way because he's done something naughty or unacceptable but he may not UNDERSTAND WHAT it is. It's in just this way," Dr. Rosenfeld continues, "that sexual anxieties and discomforts about the body are passed along from one generation to another." At the same time, parents also received messages in their own childhood, messages containing implicit standards that come out in the parents' spontaneous remarks and behavior. The parent does mean that part of the message that says "stop it!" but may not REALIZE the other effects the message will have. Some parents WORRY THAT they're not as open about sex as they THINK they ought to be, and for that reason they may tend to be more open than they really feel. Children SENSE that uneasiness quickly. As a mother undresses in front of her son, if she's uncomfortable, he'll sense it. As she allows the brother and sister baths to continue despite her feelings, her children SEE she feels awkward and tense. As Dr. Rosenfeld explains, "If you go against your real feelings, you're denying all that is good about your sexuality, your warmth, your moral sense. Honesty may be the way out of the dilemma. "Why not tell the child how you really feel?" suggests Rosenfeld. "If you FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE about the child seeing you without your clothes, why not just say that? It puts the burden on you, not the child. It also lets the child SEE THAT he has a real parent, someone who tells the truth and also has a right to her own feelings." Another approach is to talk about privacy. Instead of telling a child she's "too old" to bathe with her brother, a parent can try saying that now she's "old enough" to do certain things in private. Children will also WANT privacy for themselves, whether or not they KNOW HOW to request it. Privacy is a LARGE IDEA to teach, and it has to include more than sexuality. If a parent WANTS a child to knock at her bedroom door before entering, she has to do the same when she's at the child's door. It means not opening the child's mail, even if it's just a birthday card from Grandma. pages 72-77 \fILearning To Love Video Games\fR A mother of two teenagers complained that children were using their lunch money to play the games. She said, "I REMINDS me of smoking. Smoking doesn't do us any bit of good. It's addictive and it's expensive, and this is what these games are....There are kids who cannot stay away from them." Her concern has been echoed in public hearings across the country as parents grow more ANXIOUS about the time and money spent on video games, the unsavory setting of some of the arcades, and the often violent content of the games. To what extent are parents' WORRIES WARRANTED? And is it really true the games don't do us "any bit of good?" As yet there is little research available to answer these questions definitively, but I BELIEVE that video games, far from being worthless, may be teaching children skills that put them way ahead of adults in certain areas--but first let me address parents' specific worries. Only 7 percent spent lunch money. In fact, he FOUND THAT because they are better players than adults, playing arcade games isn't as expensive for youngsters as for their elders. In the world of video games, isn't as expensive for youngsters as for their elders. In contrast, Edna Mitchell, professor of education at Mills College, had twenty northern California families keep diaries for a week each month for five months after purchasing an Atari game set. She FOUND THAT the game sets were used an average of 42 minutes a day per \fIfamily\fR, hardly an addictive pattern, especially as compared with television. Brooks found some young people who felt compelled to play, but they were a monority. In fact, he FOUND THAT about half his respondents were playing games less than half the time they were in the arcade. Instead, they were socializing. \fBThe allure of action.\fR Although there is little evidence that video games are addictive, they are alluring and to some degree parents' CONCERNS may be a reaction to this allure. What is its basis? Video games have the dynamic visual element of television and film that has been found to be key in attracting the ATTENTION of young children. However, they are also interactive. What happens on the screen is not only determined by the computer, it is also very much influenced by the player's actions. Video games are the first medium to combine moving visual images with an active, participatory role for the child. What evidence exists that a DESIRE for interaction is an important motivation in computer games as compared with television? Although to my KNOWLEDGE no systematic research exists on this subject, studies in other settings have compared children's PREFERENCES for things to observe versus things to interact with. According to researcher Sherman Rosenfeld of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, the most predictable pattern in all of these studies, whether the setting was a zoo, a museum, or an aquarium, can be described as the search for interactive experiences. The children in her sample watched less television after getting their video-game sets. This is further corroborated by my informal interviews with children who were unanimous in saying they PREFERRED the games to television and for the same reason: active control. The meaning of control was both very concrete for the younger children. One nine-year-old girl said, "In TV if you WANT to make someone die, you can't. In Pac-Man, if you WANT to run into a ghost you can." \fBVideo games and violence.\fR So far parents' WORRIES seem over-blown, with the exception of concern about the atmosphere of the arcades themselves. However, one additional criticism merits attention: the content of the great majority of the games available in public places is violent. The first evidence is in that violent video games do greed aggressive behavior, just as violent television shows do. Researchers Steve B. Silvern, Peter A. Williamson, and Terry A. Countermine of Auburn University FOUND that both Space Invaders and Roadrunner raise the level of aggressive play and lower the level of pro-social play in five-year-old children. The effects of video violence are not simple, however. The same researchers have more recently FOUND that two-player aggressive video games, whether cooperative or competitive, reduce the level of aggression in children's play. Another complex aspect of video violence is that it is more APPEALING to boys than to girls--a fact borne out for any casual observer by a visit to a video arcade where boys for outnumber girls. The work of one researcher, Thomas Malone of the Massachusetts Institute Technology, provides substantiation. This sex difference has important social implications: Do we want to reinforce the male potential for aggressive behavior through yet another entertainment medium? Moreover, if children's INTEREST in computers begins with games, as indeed it does, then the fact that the most common computer games involve aggressive and violent fantasy may have the effect of turning many girls away from computers. This would be unfortunate in a field that is still expanding rapidly and therefore should be especially promising for women. \fBMust games bo violent?\fR Despite the APPEAL of violent fantasy, at least to boys, it may not be a necessary ingredient to ensure a game's popularity. In a study of children's motivation for playing video games on computers in the school setting Malone FOUND that among children five to thirteen the PREFERRED game was Petball, a version of computer pinball, a game that has no obvious aggression in it at all. Recent television research supports this conclusion: new findings by Aletha Huston and John Wright at the University of Kansas show that action, not violence per se, is what attracts young people to the screen. With this IN MIND, the Children's Computer Workshop (CCW), a division of the Children's Television Workshop, is working on educational software with action-game formats and nonviolent themes. Their work recognizes that the medium of video games is in itself neutral with respect to social values, but the choice of a game design can have an important influence on children's behavior. Second, the skills required to play video games go far beyond "mere" eye-hand coordination. I am CONVINCED that many of those who criticize the games would not be able to play them, and that their difficulties would be greater than and different from a lack of eye-hand coordination. I BELIEVE that children who have watched television from an early age and thus become adept at using dynamic visual information become skilled at video games in a way many of their elders do not. Let me illustrate with the game of Pac-Man. When I played Pac-Man for the first time, I had watched it being played, and I ASSUMED I would be able to play it myself. But when I started, I FOUND I could not even distinguish Pac-man from the other blobs on the screen. A little girl of about five had to explain the game to me. After trying the game again, I THOUGHT I had the basics. True, my score was not very good, but I ASSUMED that was because my reflexes were not fast and I lacked sensorimotor practice. But I soon DISCOVERED that I had missed all but the most obvious aspects of the game. Pac-Man is much more complex than I had IMAGINED, and most of the complexities are of a sort that cannot be incorporated in conventional board games such as checkers, chess, or Monopoly. In Pac-Man, as in other video games, no one tells the player the rules governing Pac-Man's behavior or the behavior of his opponents, the ghosts; these must be INDUCED from observation. The player must not only overcome obstacles but must also perform the inductive task of FIGURING out the nature of the obstacles. The behavior patterns he must DISCOVER lie in the game's computer program. The real-time movement of video games is another source of their complexity. Pac-Man illustrates another cognitive requirement of skillful videogame playing: parallel processing. This refers to the INTAKE of information from several sources simultaneously, in contrast with serial processing in which the MIND TAKES in information from one source at a time. To be a good Pac-man player you must simultaneously keep track of Pac-Man, the four ghosts, where you are in the maze, and four energizers that give Pac-Man power for a brief period if he eats them. Pictoral images, in general, tend to elicit parallel processing while verbal media, by contrast, because of the sequential nature of language, tend to elicit serial processing. Video games embody yet another cognitive complexity impossible in precomputer games: the interaction of two elements yields results that could not be PREDICTED from either one separately. Thus, if you watched Pac-Man's behavior alone, you could not DISCOVER the special qualities of different parts of the maze. Nor could you be watching the ghosts' behavior alone. Even inspection of the maze itself gives no clue. Only by watching the ghosts interacting with Pac-Man in different parts of the maze can you DETECT its dynamic variables characterize almost all video games. Experimental work be Ted Kahn at the University of California at Berkeley confirms that games that require the player to INDUCE the relations among multiple interacting variables are difficult for many people. Furthermore, learning to play this type of game helps one develop skills such as flexibility and an ORIENTATION TOWARD independent achievement. Spatial skills are also developed by video games. Parts of a single story are linked by doors that, like the stairs, serve as cues for integrating individual mazes into the layout of a given story. When my son Matthew taught me the game, I completely MISSED the aspect of spatial integration. I treated the mazes as if they were independent, unaware that they were linked in the third dimension through stairs. I even MISSED the connections between mazes on the same level and did not REALIZE that to leave a maze by the same door by which I entered was to go backward to an earlier maze instead of advancing to a new one. Matthew commented, "Most people REALIZE \fIthat\fR even if they are not paying ATTENTION." Apparently, the ability to integrate different spatial perspectives has become automatic for him, but not for me. I DON'T KNOW what caused the difference--the male's typically greater spatial ability, practice in playing the games at a young age, familiarity with game formats, a foundation of visual skills developed through watching television, or all of these together, but it does SUGGEST that a good player has skills in spatial integration and that these skills cannot be taken for granted. All in all the variety of skills involved in the game SUGGESTS that the child who becomes an expert may be developing the sensorimotor level skills that he will use at an abstract level in higher mathematics and science as he advances in school. Far from being lazy or seeking mindless games, children seem to look for challenge. The existence of multiple levels in video games may contribute to their ALLURE. The challenge of ever-new game condition, added to the FEELING of control that children claim computer games give them, creates a long-term APPEAL. Rather than FEARING this appeal we can harness it to make other learning experiences, particularly shcool, more engrossing. One way to do so may be to incorporate appropriate video games into the curriculum in a multi-media approach to education.