
Mr. Rogers Had a Simple Set of Rules for Talking to Children - panic
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/mr-rogers-neighborhood-talking-to-kids/562352/?single_page=true
======
gowld
The article makes an oblique reference to it, but it's worth noting that Fred
Rogers graduated from a theological Seminary and his television show was his
Presbyterian ministry. Mr Rogers is at the same time a sort of stereotypical
Christian character (imagine _The Simpsons_ ' Flanders without the satirical
comedy aspects) and also not the image of a Christian minister that we usually
see in the mainstream media and popular culture.

Mr Rogers may be most _intentionally_ -Christian cultural influence that
wasn't widely noticed as "Christian", in the lives of millions of people --
for both many people who don't think Christianity is a part of their lives as
well as for many people who do.

I write this not to proselytize or to suggest that you should become Christian
if you respect Mr Rogers, but as a reminder that the image you have in your
mind of an X (for whatever X that is a large weakly-connected community)
should not generalize to all X, and some very X-ey people might not look X-ey
at all.

The article also shows that there is often a lot of hard work and educated
insight behind things that look very simple and basic.

~~~
toasterlovin
Whenever hardcore atheists criticize the religious, they are inevitably
focusing on the worst that is done in the name of religion and ignoring all
the good that is done in the name of religion. I have consistently found
intensely, cerebrally religious people to be some of my favorite people to
talk to. And I see so much good come from people who seat religion at the head
of their table, so to speak. I wish secular folk could see and appreciate all
the good that religion does.

~~~
eridius
The people who do good in the name of religion, by and large, don't need
religion to do good. They may (or may not) use religion as an excuse to
explain why they do good, but that's just it, an excuse, and without religion
they'd almost certainly still do good.

On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of evil done in the name of
religion that wouldn't be done at all if it weren't for religion. An
incredible amount of hate and bigotry and oppression and violence all rooted
in dogma.

People don't need to be taught how to love. But they do need to be taught how
to hate.

~~~
acjacobson
How do you know that same evil wouldn’t be done without religion? Hate and
evil finds justification for itself wherever it can. Often it is religion but
it can also be in culture, tradition, racism, otherness etc. I’m not convinced
a lack of religion would correspond to a net reduction in that kind of evil.
It might just shift somewhere else as humans try to justify their terrible
actions.

~~~
tcbawo
I have long held that the ability to rationalize one's actions is the root of
all evil. IMHO, this is orthogonal to religiosity.

~~~
debaserab2
That doesn’t make sense to me - rationalizing your actions is a very necessary
coping skill for living every day life. You have to make sub optimal decisions
at times and you need a way to move on. That a person can rationalize evil
decisions is unfortunate, but it doesn’t take away the necessity of it.

------
selljamhere
One of my favorite examples of public speaking is Mr. Rogers testifying before
a Senate subcommittee in support of funding for national public television. He
is calm, thoughtful and thorough through the entire process, speaking simply
and without grandeur. It's a small wonder he found such success, and a great
example of the importance of clear communication.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA)

~~~
covercash
I have a playlist of Fred Rogers videos including an AMAZING 4.5 hour
interview that covers everything you could ever want to know about him:
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1eNhoNMQfyH0OCAwcixA...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1eNhoNMQfyH0OCAwcixAmkkYz0tyPpln)

~~~
Hannan
Hey, thanks a ton. I'm only on the second video, and it already blows my mind
how the man is even more the character than the character.

~~~
corysama
There’s a great clip out there of Levar Burton describing being invited to
Roger’s set for the first time. He says he was impressed by the character,
then by how Rogers stayed in character between takes, then he saw Fred speak
with his wife and realized it wasn’t a character.

------
_emacsomancer_
An interesting article, though I don't think this bit is entirely accurate:

> because he knew that children—the preschool-age boys and girls who made up
> the core of his audience—tend to hear things literally.

It's not about hearing things 'literally', but it's that children are less
adept than (some) adults in dealing with the polysemy inherent in natural
language, and especially in navigating polysemy based on context. The example
they provide is a good case in point:

> For instance, Greenwald mentioned a scene in a hospital in which a nurse
> inflating a blood-pressure cuff originally said “I’m going to blow this up.”
> Greenwald recalls: “Fred made us redub the line, saying, ‘I’m going to puff
> this up with some air,’ because ‘blow it up’ might sound like there’s an
> explosion, and he didn’t want the kids to cover their ears and miss what
> would happen next.”

So _blow up_ meaning "explode" isn't any more 'literal' an interpretation than
_blow up_ meaning "to inflate". In fact, if anything, the latter is the more
literal interpretation. But the point is that _blow up_ is polysemous, and the
"explode" sense is common enough that children might take that to be the
primary sense and (especially) younger ones might not be able to use the
immediate context (nurse with a blood pressure cuff) to discard that sense as
unlikely.

------
arittr
This is just so interesting - I think these rules are more applicable to
everyday communication between adults than they may seem at first glance. The
point on taking a negative statement and rephrasing it to be positive reminds
me of the time I spent in customer support... I feel like people react more
strongly to the way something is said than the bare content of what you’re
saying.

------
Endy
These rules might not always apply well to discourse between adults. On the
other hand, if you are an adult who is speaking to - and leading - children,
Mr. Rogers still provides a positive example of how to approach the subject.
Distilling challenging subjects into simple, factual, statements without
negative emotional attachments can be extremely difficult. When it works well,
you provide an invaluable level of education. If it doesn't, at least you've
done your best - and in general children will respond positively to the
attempt.

~~~
quadrangle
The abstraction works well for everyone: communicate thoughtfully with deep
intention and understanding. Do all you can to know the perspective and
interpretations that your audience will have and work diligently to express
things both clearly and compassionately.

For example, think about how much good could be achieved if the _knowledge_ of
people that the advertising industry holds were used exclusively to present
only messages truly in the listeners' best interest and with real compassion.

To reword my abstraction: be _mindful_ and compassionate in everything you
communicate and always seek the best expert sources in improving your
communication skills.

------
chriselles
I have to admit that as a child I tried to avoid watching Mister Rogers
Neighborhood as I much preferred cartoons like Tom & Jerry that contained
frightening levels of violence looking back in retrospect.

But decades later as a parent I am incredibly grateful for the body of work
Fred Rogers and his collaborators and guests created.

As an adult I see the value he created and the value millions of kids
captured.

Fred Rogers was a great human being that helped make the world a better place,
one kid at a time, for decades.

~~~
toasterlovin
I think much of the value Mr. Rogers brought was just that we knew he existed.
That we could carry around this archetype of pure goodness as a thing to
strive toward. And the amazing thing is that you get that even if you didn’t
want to watch the show as a kid.

------
delbel
Mr. Rogers sings the line "It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood," but
many people growing up remember the line as "It's a beautiful day in the
neighborhood."

When I grew up it was "in THE neighborhood", not "this". Who else remembers
this? What the hell?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL3xSctTB5c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL3xSctTB5c)

~~~
iNate2000
I never until this moment even thought he said "this."

But it totally jibes with the article. It may not be a beautiful day in the
neighborhood where the child is watching, but it's a beautiful day in _this_
neighborhood.

Fascinating!

------
corysama
I'm sure the timing of this article is not coincidentally aligned with the
release of the Mr. Roger documentary _Won 't You Be My Neighbor?_ :) I haven't
seen it yet, but I'm sure it's wonderful.

Trailer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwktRDG_aQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwktRDG_aQ)

~~~
jstewartmobile
Absolutely! Every non-controversial article in the mainstream media has one
_paid_ PR guru or another behind it.

------
wiradikusuma
"..concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of
personal support from a televised figure.. ..he went back to production
carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse
children in that way."

In today's world, producers would probably do the opposite to up-sell
merchandise and stuff.

~~~
fjsolwmv
In the world then, Captain Kangaroo did sell merchandise.

~~~
DonHopkins
So what do you think Mister Do Bee was selling??? I was so confused as a
child. Didn't he go on to develop three.js?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvdSGkN0aU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvdSGkN0aU)

"Happy Jack says it's time for Romper Room, and time for us to say good
morning to Do Bee. And welcome to Romper Room. Do Bee would like you to put on
your wings. Put on big Do Bee Wings and then start flying with us all over
Romper Room! Come on, flap those wings!"

------
djrogers
This is fascinating! I'm absolutely floored whenever I see anyone who has such
a meticulous and detailed mastery of their craft.

------
pasbesoin
Amongst other things, worth noting how informed his approach was.

At a time when a lot of pedagogy, and professionalism regarding same, seems to
be under assault.

~~~
germinalphrase
Well - you know - those are _soft_ skills.

------
rdlecler1
But was he right? Was this best? A lot of research from the 50s turned out to
be bad. The article doesn’t help us out here.

~~~
Endy
That depends - do you still remember to look for the helpers?

------
beenBoutIT
It's interesting that Mr. Roger's Neighborhood(the TV show) isn't a bigger
deal. The show doesn't need I improving, all of the subject matter is still
highly relevant in today's world, and it's entertaining.

~~~
gowld
New episodes stopped over 15 years ago, after a 30 year run. It played in
reruns for at least another 10 years (I'm not sure if it's still airing), and
the animated spin-off has been airing new episodes for the past 6 years.

It's still kind of a big deal. It's aimed at pre-schoolers, so you won't find
too many teens and adults talking about it online much.

Old stuff always gets stale, and does so more quickly these days where fashion
and technology change so quickly.

------
DoreenMichele
I don't have any idea why the top comment here is about Christianity.
Understanding the psychology of small kids and good communication practices
has nothing to do with religion.

It's a great read. I'm not as taken with the nine steps at the end for how to
speak Freddish. I do agree with some of the steps, but not all.

Some of those steps are a good communication practice with any demographic,
such as framing it positively. The mind has some trouble with statements
framed as "Don't do X." Modeling what does work is generally vastly more
effective, efficient and comprehensible.

~~~
humanrebar
> I don't have any idea why the top comment here is about Christianity.

People around here don't like Christianity. See the TV show Silicon Valley
S5E4.

You wouldn't see a thread about the merits of being Japanese, female, or
vegetarian in a tangentially related HN post. People put religious identity in
another category for some reason.

~~~
DoreenMichele
That's a funny thing to read here given that two of the top three people on
the leaderboard very publicly admit to being Catholic. My impression is there
are quite a lot of Christians on HN and most of them just don't wear it on
their sleeve while posting here, which is as it should be, in my opinion.

Additionally, as a woman, I see threads derail on the detail of gender
identity a lot. I have spent nearly nine years working at making it possible
to post as openly female without irrelevant questions about my gender
routinely derailing discussions that I choose to participate in.

~~~
humanrebar
Right. People are pig-headed about gender, but people generally don't deny
that women deserve respect as women. And they generally don't argue that
diversity of gender is worth celebrating.

The top comment in this thread is basically celebrating Fred Rogers as a
Christian and there are many threads and responses arguing that the Christian
part is irrelevant or even despicable. I would expect analogous comments about
women to be moderated out of the picture here. And I have seen that happen.

I can't say why Christian members of the HN community aren't more outspoken
about this shortcoming in tech diversity culture. I suspect the answer to that
question is fairly personal and complex.

As to "wearing on their sleeves", I don't see that happening much at all. On
the contrary, I see people behaving much more in a closeted manner if
anything. I don't think that's healthy for anyone.

~~~
DoreenMichele
My original point was that this was a good article about communication best
practices. Sadly, that element seems to have been given short shrift in favor
of mostly discussing religion, which I am guilty of participating in. The vast
majority of the discussion here is not about principles and practices of good
communication, a thing I would have very much enjoyed.

------
DonHopkins
I agree 100% with Berkeley Breathed when he wrote:

Mister Rogers: Welcome to my neighborhood, boys and girls!

Did you enjoy meeting Senator Kravitz today? I did. He told us about something
called "inflation," didn't he? Can YOU say "inflation?"

Opus: Inphlabph.

Mister Rogers: Good! Can you say "Mister Rogers should be paid more dough?"

Opus: Mister Rogers should -

Mister Rogers: Can you put it on a postcard?

[https://78.media.tumblr.com/dad9d0c81aab7c572572e6151483dd8c...](https://78.media.tumblr.com/dad9d0c81aab7c572572e6151483dd8c/tumblr_ntspnv3GTR1t3i99fo10_1280.jpg)

I believe that was a Soupy Sales reference:

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greenmail/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/greenmail/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM)

Here is Mister Rogers talking to the children in Congress, successfully asking
them to send him millions of little green pieces of paper:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA)

------
sytelus
LOL. I'm purposely using complicated language with my kids. They many time get
only gist of it but its lot of fun. For example, instead of saying "go ask you
mom", I would purposely say "Have you considered proposing this question to
your mom?". I'm not sure what child psychologists would say about this.

~~~
feiss
I agree with this approach. They understand the message, and learn a richer
and more complex vocabulary and language in a natural way, which may
eventually lend in more subtle and complex mental model.

