Bay Area elementary school holds toy-gun exchange

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 13:05:56 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jun 11, 2013 10:54:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

red herring.  we are not talking about controlling crazy, any more than speed limits "control fatal accidents".

It's not a red herring.....it's an argument that people who commit these crimes already have a mental disorder and blaming their actions on the games (as opposed to the actual disorder) is attempting to place blame in the wrong spot.  . 

your SPECIFIC example has nothing to do with the GENERAL CASE of gun buybacks, tho.

THAT is why it is a red herring.  gun buybacks have nothing to do with crazy.  they have to do with accidental shootings.  they have to do with stolen weapons.  they have to do with keeping the population of guns down in neighborhoods that already are overpopulated with street criminals.

but furthermore, toy guys are not weapons.  so the issue for these parents is sensitizing their kids do the potential of NON-toy guns to kill, imo.

what's yours?  or do you just think this whole thing is silly and pointless, and that parents who encourage this are PC leftist tools?

[Apple]

But there is also the "opposite" issue...

I would guess that violent people are more drawn to watching violent movies than Pollyanna.  So, watching violent movies didn't cause them to become violent, they already were, they just watched what they liked.  TV doesn't make people lazy, but there are a lot of lazy people who love TV. 

I guess what bothers me is that people overlook the fact that someone made a choice, they would rather find something to blame for that so they can say "it's not his/her fault."  There are always some exceptions to the rule, but the knee-jerk, sweeping reactions suck.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:27:47 GMT -5 Apple said:

But there is also the "opposite" issue...

I would guess that violent people are more drawn to watching violent movies than Pollyanna.  So, watching violent movies didn't cause them to become violent, they already were, they just watched what they liked.  TV doesn't make people lazy, but there are a lot of lazy people who love TV.

the studies i have read control for that by exposing kids to TV or other violence, rather than letting it happen as a matter of consequence or choice.

like i say, i think this area is so well researched at this point that it is not really all that controversial.  but if anyone thinks otherwise, just post a study showing that there is no correlation between viewing and/or acting out violence and increased aggression in those that do it.

[Virgil Showlion]

for a guy who can write a 1000 word math proof, you really seem to have a lot of skepticism about science.  i am putting it lightly.  disdain is the word i wanted to use.

My mathematical expertise is the origin of my skepticism.

You talk about "isolating variables", but seem to have no conception about how many variables there are. Likewise you're ignoring the fact that the data sets are so small that it's statistically impossible to "isolate variables", depending on deeply they correlate. Finally, determining causation requires the ability to manipulate variables, and there you run into ethical barriers. A behavioural researcher is not going to get permission from his/her institution to provide variable doses of violent material to minors to determine if he/she can produce controlled responses in violent behaviour.

2) you can do studies which show IMMEDIATE impact on behavior, and then measure how the OBSERVED behavior changes over time.  in these cases, it is 100% clear where the behavior came from, as all other variables are isolated.

So show us some pertaining to the issue at hand. Show us a study where violent video games are delivered in controlled 'doses' to children taking medication for mental disorders, whose parents are somewhat remiss in their parenting, that shows no statistically significant change in violent behaviour as observed over a period of no less than 5 years.

This is one of countless possible combinations, but it happens to be the one I suggested in Reply #24. Hence if you want to bolster my faith in the behavioural sciences, show me a study with these parameters and you'll have won yourself a convert.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:37:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

for a guy who can write a 1000 word math proof, you really seem to have a lot of skepticism about science.  i am putting it lightly.  disdain is the word i wanted to use.

My mathematical expertise is the origin of my skepticism.

You talk about "isolating variables", but seem to have no conception about how many variables there are. .

there are a lot of them.  however, it is not that hard to isolate by being the initiator of the experimental stimulus, right?

in other words, if we are measuring emotional response to being slapped on the cheek, and i am the guy doing the slapping, that is reasonably good control, right?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:37:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

2) you can do studies which show IMMEDIATE impact on behavior, and then measure how the OBSERVED behavior changes over time.  in these cases, it is 100% clear where the behavior came from, as all other variables are isolated.

So show us some pertaining to the issue at hand. Show us a study where violent video games .......

bzzzt.  i never mentioned video games.  and the OP has nothing to do with them, as far as i can tell.

[Virgil Showlion]

DJ, if you can point me to any study with the following parameters:

• focuses on games developed post-year-2000
  
• concludes that no correlation (any correlation r < .3, say) exists between violent video games and aggressive behaviour
  
• is published in a peer-reviewed journal
  
• considers any combination of factors beyond simply looking at "all people who play video games" as a population

I'd be grateful. I've been scanning the e-Journals and Google scholar for the past half hour and... nothing. I have found several articles complaining about publication bias in the psychological journals, and more than a few (disputed, obviously) that did find a correlation.

Half of them seem to be working off data from 1988.

None that even hint at controlled experimentation--except for television, which is a completely separate medium from video games.

Good luck in finding the study I've asked you to procure in Reply #33.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 14:44:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:37:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So show us some pertaining to the issue at hand. Show us a study where violent video games .......

bzzzt.  i never mentioned video games.  and the OP has nothing to do with them, as far as i can tell.

It doesn't, but that's where the discussion moved to, and I'm talking about video games.

If you want to debate TV violence, that's a completely different ball of wax. I have seen controlled experiments done in that venue, but most of them--as I point out above--are falling back to studies done in the 1980's and 1990's.

But not to get sidetracked, my debate was on video games specifically, hence I'm sticking to that.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:37:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

for a guy who can write a 1000 word math proof, you really seem to have a lot of skepticism about science.  i am putting it lightly.  disdain is the word i wanted to use.

My mathematical expertise is the origin of my skepticism..

i don't follow that logic, at all.  unless you are saying that social sciences are not like mathematical proofs, in which case, i understand completely.

that doesn't mean that social sciences are hollow, however.  there is plenty of correlation and causation that can be shown in that field.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:53:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:44:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

bzzzt.  i never mentioned video games.  and the OP has nothing to do with them, as far as i can tell.

It doesn't, but that's where the discussion moved to, and I'm talking about video games. .

if you say so.  i never entered into that discussion, so i guess you need to talk to someone else.  you see, i know NOTHING about video games.    i know that a lot of people like to talk about things they know nothing about, but i am not one of them.  if i know nothing about a subject, i just read until i DO know.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:53:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:44:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

bzzzt.  i never mentioned video games.  and the OP has nothing to do with them, as far as i can tell.

It doesn't, but that's where the discussion moved to, and I'm talking about video games.

If you want to debate TV violence, that's a completely different ball of wax. I have seen controlled experiments done in that venue, but most of them--as I point out above--are falling back to studies done in the 1980's and 1990's.

But not to get sidetracked, my debate was on video games specifically, hence I'm sticking to that.

have fun with that.  let me know when we get back to the discussion of gun buybacks and how violence in general relates to violence in the communities where the buybacks are taking place.  that is something i know a bit about.  i am out of my depths with video games, and have no intention of pretending like i have something to say about it, other than something sick and funny that i read on line.  i will save that for later.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 14:43:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:37:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

My mathematical expertise is the origin of my skepticism.

You talk about "isolating variables", but seem to have no conception about how many variables there are. .

there are a lot of them.  however, it is not that hard to isolate by being the initiator of the experimental stimulus, right?

in other words, if we are measuring emotional response to being slapped on the cheek, and i am the guy doing the slapping, that is reasonably good control, right?

If you can get ethics approval to slap a few hundred kids to see how violently they respond, then yes.

If you're trying to study what set of factors--mentally compromised children, poorly parented children, disaffected children, etc., etc.--can combine with violent games to produce mass shooters, any ethics committee would kick your proposal out the door so fast you'd be lucky to keep your job. And besides that, I'm talking about tendencies that may develop over a period of years as a child matures. Behavioural studies invariably concentrate on shorter-term phenomena in order to maintain publication volume and because of the inevitable problems (both logistical and statistical) with tracking a group of people over longer periods of time.

[djAdvocate]

PS- if you can show ANY study (even one of VIDEO GAMES) that shows there is no correlation between exposure to violence and aggressive behavior, i would be happy to read it.

TYIA

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 14:59:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:43:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there are a lot of them.  however, it is not that hard to isolate by being the initiator of the experimental stimulus, right?

in other words, if we are measuring emotional response to being slapped on the cheek, and i am the guy doing the slapping, that is reasonably good control, right?

If you can get ethics approval to slap a few hundred kids to see how violently they respond, then yes..

ethics, schmethics. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 14:59:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:53:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It doesn't, but that's where the discussion moved to, and I'm talking about video games.

If you want to debate TV violence, that's a completely different ball of wax. I have seen controlled experiments done in that venue, but most of them--as I point out above--are falling back to studies done in the 1980's and 1990's.

But not to get sidetracked, my debate was on video games specifically, hence I'm sticking to that.

have fun with that.  let me know when we get back to the discussion of gun buybacks and how violence in general relates to violence in the communities where the buybacks are taking place.  that is something i know a bit about.  i am out of my depths with video games, and have no intention of pretending like i have something to say about it, other than something sick and funny that i read on line.  i will save that for later.

I'm not going to debate you there because I doubt there's a strong correlation, and I doubt anybody could even measure it.

I don't particularly like toy guns meant to resemble actual guns. Even the premise of children 'killing' each other as a form of play is something I'd prefer to do away with. Water guns and other 'weapons' where kids know the purpose of the device is something besides killing a fellow human being, I see no harm in. I include BB guns and paintball guns in this category, since these also have purely recreational uses.

In short, I'm in favour of any initiative that does away with a casual view of weapons designed to kill--either in the real or in a kid's imagination. If a community wants to get kids' thoughts off of shooting things and onto more productive exploits, that's fine by me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 15:01:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- if you can show ANY study (even one of VIDEO GAMES) that shows there is no correlation between exposure to violence and aggressive behavior, i would be happy to read it.

TYIA

There are studies all over the map. There are meta-analyses of meta-analyses. This one seems to be one of the more recent ones, and it does a good job and pointing out the messy state of affairs. I'm not sure if you'll be able to view the full text of the article.

[Spellbound454]

I didn't let my boys have toy guns.

"Bang, bang, you're dead"......... doesn't seem like much of a game to me.

I didn't let them have violent video games either........the computers had filters on and videos were age appropriate.

Children should be allowed to be children....and that involves growing up gradually.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 15:15:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:59:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have fun with that.  let me know when we get back to the discussion of gun buybacks and how violence in general relates to violence in the communities where the buybacks are taking place.  that is something i know a bit about.  i am out of my depths with video games, and have no intention of pretending like i have something to say about it, other than something sick and funny that i read on line.  i will save that for later.

I'm not going to debate you there because I doubt there's a strong correlation, and I doubt anybody could even measure it.

I don't particularly like toy guns meant to resemble actual guns. Even the premise of children 'killing' each other as a form of play is something I'd prefer to do away with. Water guns and other 'weapons' where kids know the purpose of the device is something besides killing a fellow human being, I see no harm in. I include BB guns and paintball guns in this category, since these also have purely recreational uses.

In short, I'm in favour of any initiative that does away with a casual view of weapons designed to kill--either in the real or in a kid's imagination. If a community wants to get kids' thoughts off of shooting things and onto more productive exploits, that's fine by me.

that is so close to my position that it is stimulating my group hug ganglia.

[EVT1]

Good points- can't be anything but positive to get a kid on a skateboard or into some sports, and maybe playing Mario over Call of Duty.

But I doubt there is any correlation- I grew up with the cap gun, the BB gun, the real gun, etc.  Played the violent games.  Are they even making the loud ass cap guns anymore?  Looked real back then.  But what effect?  Can porn turn someone into a rapist, a creep, or nothing at all?  Movies, music, all of it.  I remember when they blamed Ozzy for a suicide over lyrics.  Same yokels that claimed Rush was satanic.  Same yokels pointed at Marilyn Manson after Columbine.  Is it too much to realize that some people are inherently flawed and will likely end up on the news no matter what?

If anything I will support this kind of program specifically because it goes against the NRA and what it wants to do.  And really- it isn't the kids- it is the damn parents we need to worry about. 

[whoisjohngalt]

I find it fascinating that anyone can really believe that what toys kids play with will have such a profound effect on so many things.

There is a school that "outlawed" dodgeball - since it's "human target" activity.

There are schools that don't allow "tag-you-are-it" game anymore

There are many more examples like that.

Instead of spending so much time and money on such nonsense studies and "laws", may be we should be concentrating on over all values and morals of our society and our parenting. 

I guess I'll be making a trip to BRU in case they "outlaw" all the toy guns

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 19:38:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Good points- can't be anything but positive to get a kid on a skateboard or into some sports, and maybe playing Mario over Call of Duty.

But I doubt there is any correlation- I grew up with the cap gun, the BB gun, the real gun, etc.  Played the violent games.  Are they even making the loud ass cap guns anymore?  Looked real back then.  But what effect?  Can porn turn someone into a rapist, a creep, or nothing at all?  Movies, music, all of it.  I remember when they blamed Ozzy for a suicide over lyrics.  Same yokels that claimed Rush was satanic.  Same yokels pointed at Marilyn Manson after Columbine.  Is it too much to realize that some people are inherently flawed and will likely end up on the news no matter what?

If anything I will support this kind of program specifically because it goes against the NRA and what it wants to do.  And really- it isn't the kids- it is the damn parents we need to worry about. 

In reading the comments on the suicideproject.org site, the commenters there were clearly impacted by music.

Whether it "causes" their suicides is a question we'll never be able to answer. We've studied cigarettes over six decades, and even with the high morbidity of cigarettes, the best we can conclude is that cigarettes "contribute" to various ailments. A good many smokers, especially if they're not heavy smokers, live to a ripe old age with only minor complications. Likewise, a man who smokes a pack a week but eats well and exercises is probably going to live longer than a man who doesn't smoke but has a lousy diet and doesn't exercise.

If it takes us six decades of research to come to even these qualified, probabilistic conclusions about something as deadly as cigarettes, why are people so confident that research will surely have exposed the more insidious effects of music, TV, games, etc. by now? It simply isn't true. We have glimpses of insight in some cases, but as I was pointing out to DJ, the research is dated, limited in scope, biased, and the conclusions are all over the map.

It's the age old paradox of the man asking his doctor: So doc, if I smoke this cigarette, this will be the one that kills me?

The answer is the same for every single cigarette the man smokes. "No. The statistical odds that this cigarette specifically will kill you are negligible." But if the man gets cancer and dies, do we cynically scoff at the notion the first cancer cells in his lungs developed in response to toxins introduced by a specific cigarette? We do not. Because we know that there exists an x such that if the man had smoked x-1 cigarettes and then quit, he'd still be alive. Why should we disregard the same possibility for music, etc. and violence?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 19:38:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Good points- can't be anything but positive to get a kid on a skateboard or into some sports, and maybe playing Mario over Call of Duty.

But I doubt there is any correlation- I grew up with the cap gun, the BB gun, the real gun, etc.  Played the violent games.  Are they even making the loud ass cap guns anymore?  Looked real back then.  But what effect?  Can porn turn someone into a rapist, a creep, or nothing at all?  Movies, music, all of it.  I remember when they blamed Ozzy for a suicide over lyrics.  Same yokels that claimed Rush was satanic.  Same yokels pointed at Marilyn Manson after Columbine.  Is it too much to realize that some people are inherently flawed and will likely end up on the news no matter what?

If anything I will support this kind of program specifically because it goes against the NRA and what it wants to do.  And really- it isn't the kids- it is the damn parents we need to worry about. 

i mostly agree.  esp with the last bit.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2013 20:09:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 11, 2013 19:38:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Good points- can't be anything but positive to get a kid on a skateboard or into some sports, and maybe playing Mario over Call of Duty.

But I doubt there is any correlation- I grew up with the cap gun, the BB gun, the real gun, etc.  Played the violent games.  Are they even making the loud ass cap guns anymore?  Looked real back then.  But what effect?  Can porn turn someone into a rapist, a creep, or nothing at all?  Movies, music, all of it.  I remember when they blamed Ozzy for a suicide over lyrics.  Same yokels that claimed Rush was satanic.  Same yokels pointed at Marilyn Manson after Columbine.  Is it too much to realize that some people are inherently flawed and will likely end up on the news no matter what?

If anything I will support this kind of program specifically because it goes against the NRA and what it wants to do.  And really- it isn't the kids- it is the damn parents we need to worry about. 

In reading the comments on the suicideproject.org site, the commenters there were clearly impacted by music.

Whether it "causes" their suicides is a question we'll never be able to answer. We've studied cigarettes over six decades, and even with the high morbidity of cigarettes, the best we can conclude is that cigarettes "contribute" to various ailments. A good many smokers, especially if they're not heavy smokers, live to a ripe old age with only minor complications. Likewise, a man who smokes a pack a week but eats well and exercises is probably going to live longer than a man who doesn't smoke but has a lousy diet and doesn't exercise.

If it takes us six decades of research to come to even these qualified, probabilistic conclusions about something as deadly as cigarettes, why are people so confident that research will surely have exposed the more insidious effects of music, TV, games, etc. by now? It simply isn't true. We have glimpses of insight in some cases, but as I was pointing out to DJ, the research is dated, limited in scope, biased, and the conclusions are all over the map.

It's the age old paradox of the man asking his doctor: So doc, if I smoke this cigarette, this will be the one that kills me?

The answer is the same for every single cigarette the man smokes. "No. The statistical odds that this cigarette specifically will kill you are negligible." But if the man gets cancer and dies, do we cynically scoff at the notion the first cancer cells in his lungs developed in response to toxins introduced by a specific cigarette? We do not. Because we know that there exists an x such that if the man had smoked x-1 cigarettes and then quit, he'd still be alive. Why should we disregard the same possibility for music, etc. and violence?

i think there are two distinct strains to this conversation.  one is whether a specific media is RESPONSIBLE for increased violence, or whether the cumulative effect of all media is enough to tip the balance in some cases.  i think the evidence is fairly strong for that.  the other is whether it is guaranteed to do so, or if it can be circumvented by opposing forces such as parental guidance.  i think it is pretty clear that this is also true.  so, then, the question becomes which is the greater factor.  i don't really know the answer to that.

[mmhmm]

Virgil, how long is that poor bird going to continue to have seizures before you get it some help?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

There is a school that "outlawed" dodgeball - since it's "human target" activity

Well there is some truth to that. So says the little nerd girl who used to be a very appealing target. 

I think it's silly logic but I have nothing against getting rid of dodgeball to be honest.  I never much understood the point but I'll admit it could be due to the fact I sucked at it.  There are a million other ways to teach hand/eye coordination and get exercise that don't involve having hard  rubber balls flung at you as hard as someone can.

DH disagrees with me but then he was a dodgeball star.  He would have been the one targeting me back in school.

[Apple]

When we played dodgeball we had soft foam balls (softer than Nerf balls), so it didn't hurt.  I can't remember us ever targeting any one kid though, it seems the last two standing were often different kids.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

We played with the hard playground rubber balls.  Those could do some damage if throw hard enough.

In elementary school the PE teacher ran a tight shift so dodgeball wasn't too bad.  Middle school/high school it was a free for all and the name of the game was to pummel the girls/nerds/anyone the popular kids didn't like.

DH pretty much confirmed for me that's how he and his friend's played and yes he would have been out to get me.  Good thing we met as adults.  He sounds like he was an ass in high school .
 
I don't think it leads to kids being more violent later in life if they play dodge ball so banning it for that reason is silly. 

But I never understood how getting the crap beat out of me was supposed to teach me to appreciate the value of exercise.  Dodgeball is hell for an uncoordinated kid.

So I don't mind that game going the way of the dodo.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jun 11, 2013 14:05:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 11, 2013 13:05:56 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

It's not a red herring.....it's an argument that people who commit these crimes already have a mental disorder and blaming their actions on the games (as opposed to the actual disorder) is attempting to place blame in the wrong spot.  . 

your SPECIFIC example has nothing to do with the GENERAL CASE of gun buybacks, tho.

THAT is why it is a red herring.  gun buybacks have nothing to do with crazy.  they have to do with accidental shootings.  they have to do with stolen weapons.  they have to do with keeping the population of guns down in neighborhoods that already are overpopulated with street criminals.

but furthermore, toy guys are not weapons.  so the issue for these parents is sensitizing their kids do the potential of NON-toy guns to kill, imo.

what's yours?  or do you just think this whole thing is silly and pointless, and that parents who encourage this are PC leftist tools?

I think the whole thing is pointless and silly...and yes I do think there is something to be said about this being an attempt to make kids think all guns are bad from a young age (unless of course you honestly believe the administrator has no issue with guns in general).  If these parents have an issue with their kids playing with toy guns, then don't buy them.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jun 12, 2013 14:39:43 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

We played with the hard playground rubber balls.  Those could do some damage if throw hard enough.

In elementary school the PE teacher ran a tight shift so dodgeball wasn't too bad.  Middle school/high school it was a free for all and the name of the game was to pummel the girls/nerds/anyone the popular kids didn't like.

DH pretty much confirmed for me that's how he and his friend's played and yes he would have been out to get me.  Good thing we met as adults.  He sounds like he was an ass in high school .
 
I don't think it leads to kids being more violent later in life if they play dodge ball so banning it for that reason is silly. 

But I never understood how getting the crap beat out of me was supposed to teach me to appreciate the value of exercise.  Dodgeball is hell for an uncoordinated kid.

So I don't mind that game going the way of the dodo.

The same thing could be said of pretty much any sport...ever been hit by a baseball....ever been tackled in football....ever had a ball spiked on you in volleyball....ever been fouled in basketball....and I'm sure the list can go on.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2013 18:33:48 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jun 11, 2013 14:05:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your SPECIFIC example has nothing to do with the GENERAL CASE of gun buybacks, tho.

THAT is why it is a red herring.  gun buybacks have nothing to do with crazy.  they have to do with accidental shootings.  they have to do with stolen weapons.  they have to do with keeping the population of guns down in neighborhoods that already are overpopulated with street criminals.

but furthermore, toy guys are not weapons.  so the issue for these parents is sensitizing their kids do the potential of NON-toy guns to kill, imo.

what's yours?  or do you just think this whole thing is silly and pointless, and that parents who encourage this are PC leftist tools?

I think the whole thing is pointless and silly...and yes I do think there is something to be said about this being an attempt to make kids think all guns are bad from a young age (unless of course you honestly believe the administrator has no issue with guns in general). 

bad?  maybe.  i honestly don't know.  my issue is that kids think of them AS toys, rather than weapons.  if parents are incapable of providing that lesson, turning the damned things in would be a good alternative.

If these parents have an issue with their kids playing with toy guns, then don't buy them.

speaking for myself, i don't buy them.  grandpa does.