Santa Claus is a useful lesson for kids. They learn not to blindly trust authorities, and to think critically about things that are too good to be true.
I remember when my sister discovered there was no Santa Claus. Literally seconds later, she asked "wait, does that mean there's no God either?" My mom was shocked. Funny how that works.
But at the same time if your kid isn't believing in Santa then he's going to have to carry that opinion around and interact with other kids that do believe in Santa. This will help them ponder "truth and lies" in the same fashion.
Saying "doing something technically wrong to my kid cause it improves them" isn't a terrific argument IMO.
See, the issue here is that you seem to think without a heavy layer of delusion, the world is fucked up. What about those of us who think the world is incredible and wonderful, and that there's more than enough magic for kids to spend a lifetime in love with without ever needing to be lied to in order to obtain it?
Here's where I point out that the Santa Claus we know and love was invented outright by Coca Cola in the early 20th century in order to sell product. So it's not even that you're perpetuating an ancient fantasy, it's that you're perpetuating a marketing myth. I'm fine with pervasive marketing, but the fact that you think without it kids will be fucked up goes to show how effective Coke's strategy was.
Lying (selectively and in moderation) is the foundation of having human relations with other people. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the wonders of the world, share love and grow up to be well rounded interesting people. It's just another thing people need to learn - when to lie, and when to tell the truth. The idea that all lying is bad, is ridiculous.
My daughter lost a tooth yesterday, and we've told her to put it under her pillow so the tooth fairy can give her some money for it. Is that also wrong in some strange way? It's an example of many lies that people tell when people are worried/in pain, that make them feel better.
And FWIW, Cokes strategy is lame, since we buy Pepsi due to the better taste. I don't think the connection between Father Christmas and Coke is extremely strong in the UK, it's just another corp. that has TV ads on around xmas featuring him.
Coke's strategy was back in the 20s, dude. I don't think anybody on this site was old enough to remember it. But they created the modern image of Santa Claus, and we still use it. When you show your kid the cheery fat guy in the red suit, you're showing him what was once an ad.
I'm not saying that lying is inherently evil or anything. I'm just saying that I don't see the point in telling fibs to kids, particularly dull, unimaginative ones. If I'm going to peddle in myths, there're a thousand more fascinating ones to tell, and I can tell them and let my kids know it was a story. Or d'you think that letting kids know it's a fiction spoils the fun?
But me, I'm a fan of telling people the truth even when it's not socially correct. So perhaps I'm not this perfect little social nook that fits into your model. I see nothing wrong with letting young kids know that there's pain to go with all the pleasure. Means growing up they won't be the cynical shits I'm forced to deal with daily right now.
"The figure of Father Christmas as a jolly and friendly old man, with a small stature but a big heart, emerged through the writings and paintings of the artists during the 1800s. Clement Moore was the first to describe our Father Christmas as the chubby old man, with rosy cheeks, wearing a furry overcoat and hat in his poem, which inspired Robert Weir to paint the first portrait of Santa Claus in 1837. He made Santa wear a short suit and a stocking hat as he puffs at his long clay pipe. Finally it was in 1863, that we get to see Santa more as a real person through the pictures drawn by Thomas Nast. This is the final Father Christmas figure that we now commonly see being used for Christmas accessories and ornaments."
And a picture from 1800s shows him as the 'cheery fat guy in the red suit'.
Coke consolidated the image of Santa Claus and popularized that exact image of him. They didn't invent the red, but without their work it would not have become the de facto standard.
I would say that in some cases, lying is a means for interacting with people while preserving their feelings, but not the only means, and certainly not foundational.
Finding out one's been lied to is also pretty destructive of feelings...
I said 'foundational' because if you don't know how/when to lie to protect peoples feelings, or to make them feel better, then you're not going to have very good relationships at all.
You seem to think that the only choice parents have is to either lie about Santa Claus or tell the complete and unyielding truth about everything to their children. It's really not that black and white.
Of course we all have to choose which lies and selective truths to tell other people, and ourselves for that matter, but the important question is which ones are you personally are comfortable with. Some of don't want to subject our children to that particular lie, and it doesn't mean we have to lighten up or watch more feel-good movies. It just means we have different parenting styles.
Death: Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes.
Some of my favorite Pratchett. If you know how the passage continues then you know why its relevant here. If not, I strongly recommend!
I suppose the "I don't lie to my kids" gang tells their kids the real truth about how they were born when asked?
Give the kids a break. Let them have some fun and holidays. They don't need to grow up on day one, do they?
... further more, its perfectly reasonable, I presume, to tell them about an omniscient being who listens to the prayers of billions of people every second, every day and answers them? The Santa Claus "lie" is much more benign compared to that one.
The real truth about how they were born? Er, yes. (It sounds -- perhaps I'm just mistaking your tone? -- as if you think that's such a ridiculous idea that it's safe to assume that everyone lies about that, but I don't see why.)
How does not believing in Santa stop anyone having fun and holidays? I think the fun is mostly the parents' -- awww, isn't it cute the way they believe in Santa? -- and misleading your children because you like it when they believe falsehoods is Not Nice.
As for that other omniscient being who might give you nice things if you're good: so far as I can tell, parents who believe in that being usually tell their children he exists, and parents who don't usually don't. There isn't a longstanding tradition of telling your children things that, to the best of your knowledge, are false there. That seems like a relevant difference to me.
(I'm sure there are parents who teach their children to believe in God as a behaviour management tool, despite not being theists themselves. I'm also sure that just about everyone who opposes teaching children to believe in Santa thinks that's immoral and likely to be counterproductive in the long run.)
I suppose the "I don't lie to my kids" gang tells their kids the real truth about how they were born when asked?
Is there anything wrong with that? Conception is really, really cool. Like how having sex with people leads to babies.
You don't have to get into the details when they're young, but saying "Me and Mommy made you" is a simple, honest answer that might provoke more questions and an interesting talk.
I think he was referring to the "20 sweaty minutes in the back of a Volkswagen after the club and we forgot the condoms" part; but omitting that might fall under "unnecessary detail" rather than "outright fibbing."
Somebody isn't getting much from Santa this year...
I could take the easy route with "Geez! Dude! Lighten up!" But since I hate telling the fat guy stories myself, I'm probably best to defend them.
First, we live in a world of incomplete knowledge in which creativity is the natural way to explore. Creating group myths that we then perpetuate is a perfectly natural method of action. Little ones believe everything, medium-sized ones realize they were tricked and believe nothing, and old ones realize the story is more important and has more immediate value than the proof. (This is not a defense of fideism, just an acknowledgement that enjoying stories and pretending has a wonderful immediate impact while being a sour puss does nothing for one's disposition)
Second, it keeps kids from being greedy. (This is the one I like the most). If kids knew you were the ones buying all that crap? They'd be hounding you day and night for more. About the time kids realize that resources are finite is also about the time they figure out the fat man stuff, so it all works out.
Finally I take exactly the opposite view of the author: being purposely lied-to about the suited-one is a great introduction to how people screw around with the truth when talking to each other. It's a great life lesson in what to believe (or not). Some kids will take the lesson and choose that selecting what to believe is like going to a buffet -- logic has no role. Some kids will err on the other side and choose that unless you can prove something beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt it's not worthy of consideration. Either way, it's a great introduction to both extremes of thought. And these extremes have to be managed throughout one's life.
Like I said, I'm definitely not a fan of the fat-guy story. I tend to err on the brutally-honest side. I also feel like society has foisted this on me as a parent against my wishes. But having said that, it really is a valid criticism of the article to just say "Geesh! Get a life!"
We all get stuck on the golden rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But there is a better rule than that, sometimes called the platinum rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were them. We need to treat people by putting ourselves in their shoes and in their world first. Life sucks enough and it takes a good long while to learn to dance above the abyss. Making up fun stories for kids as a crutch for a few years is a natural, productive, and useful tool, even if it bugs lots of folks, including me.
"Okay. I know you're not the real Santa... But I know you work for him." ~ Kevin McCallister.
How about teaching your kids about the boogie man who will snatch them if they misbehave? Anybody ever had German fairytales read to them when they were young? Gory stuff.
Are you familiar with motion-based alarm systems that show a red LED when they detect motion? I heard of one parent that told their offspring that those were video cameras linked up to Santa and that the red light meant he was watching.
The site comment equating the strong a-Santa position with cold oatmeal, gray pajamas, and a cheerless disposition made me think of Eliezer Yudkowsky's essay about joy in the merely real--http://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/
It seems applicable to the article as a whole, as well as most of the reactions to it.
I remember when my sister discovered there was no Santa Claus. Literally seconds later, she asked "wait, does that mean there's no God either?" My mom was shocked. Funny how that works.