Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 388 posts

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#341

Post by wott »

EADGBE wrote: post #336
hycaria wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right ! I kept reading it inverting the two first words. I even double-checked when posting because that seemed illogical. Funny how I somehow needed someone to point it out to be able to read it right.

English grammar is pretty crazy. Does this happen in other languages, too? As often?

It happened to me in French a couple of months ago. I read the sentence 5 to 6 times to be sure, I even quoted it in my reply, to express how illogical the proposition was.

And then the guy replied that I misunderstood. I was like: " impossible, I double-triple-quadruple-checked and quoted the relevant part". And then, blast! I saw that I got lost in the position of the negative part (it wasn't even a very complex case where negations are chained, as it happens sometimes). Worst thing is that the way I understood it, it didn't have much grammatical sense, whereas the real sentence was correct.

And the fact that I had quoted the sentence proved that he hadn't edited in between. Else I would certainly have blamed him for that: I was so sure of my cautious multiple checks...

I was ashamed of myself.

(I had troubles with "is it"/"it is" in the present case too, I had to re-read the sentence 3 times to be sure. What confuses me in English is not really the grammar, it is the abundance of very short words, they scramble the structure of the sentence, for they are less recognizable and distinguishable from each other.)

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#343

Post by wott »

philh wrote: post #311
erikpukinskis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. If you have other frequent means of socializing and dinner is just a time for food in mouths, then devices at the table aren't the end of the world. But there is a reason many people like to use dinner as a mandatory point of family social contact: it keeps you on a daily schedule. You can multitask: listening to stories while you chew. And it provides some resilience to changes. Like marriage, there is…

When I don't feel like socializing, I wouldn't want to have a dinner where I can't use my phone.

Reading this thread is frightening.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#345

Post by zamalek »

citizenkeen wrote: post #7

'One of my favorite things you can do is plan a “device-free dinner.”' _A_ device free dinner? Why aren't all of them? These weird little "small gestures" make me feel like people have lost control of their homes. We have a landline expressly to give out to emergency contacts. And dinner is tech free. Every night. I think the main problem is tech has made everything _else_ easier, but parenting harder, and parents ju…

My brother uses an app to restrict what time his kids can use their devices. During dinner every night they are only allowed to call (and there is a no phone policy for everyone else, even guests). They complained and complained for more than a year. Now they complain about their friends never getting off their phones.

Irresponsibility with tech is a new danger that we have to teach our kids about.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#346

Post by dvdhnt »

sedachv wrote: post #270
luckydude wrote: post #254

I'm a retired geek but I do tractor work, I just pulled a 14 hour day and I'm having some wine so salt heavily. In my opinion, the best thing you can do with kids is create boredom. If they have access to a shop, or some lumber, they will start to build stuff. If kids are bored and they turn that into building, that's the first step towards getting into a good undergrad school. Building stuff is good. The hard part,…

> I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been good for my kids. Nothing to be ashamed about. You want the best for your children and private schools get more money. The problem is not that private schools are better, but that public schools are so much worse. The people feeling shame should be the politicians who have worked and continue to work to dismantle the public education system (…

> in large part motivated by religious fundamentalists seeking to replace public education with voucher-based religious schools

This is preposterous.

Public schools have been neutered by deep budget cuts by politicians of all parties who, along with their boosters, can afford to send their children to private schools. School budgets rely heavily on taxes (which politicians cut for political gain), state/federal grants, and programs like state lotteries.

The wealthy alumni of private schools, denomination be damned, bankroll candidates and in return the politicians push programs to force kids out of public school. They also fill the curriculum with inferior text books based on handshake agreements with publishers and drop standards to maximize the number of "successes".

TL;DR - adults fail to value the education system, watching those who can afford it send their kids to private schools, so people want more money in their pocket (less taxes) to pay for private school or demand "options" - like vouchers.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#347

Post by dvdhnt »

mcdoh wrote: post #323
sedachv wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been good for my kids. Nothing to be ashamed about. You want the best for your children and private schools get more money. The problem is not that private schools are better, but that public schools are so much worse. The people feeling shame should be the politicians who have worked and continue to work to dismantle the public education system (…

I think the difference is not that public school systems are being dismantled but that a higher percentage of private school parents value education and are engaged in their childrens' learning.

> a higher percentage of private school parents value education and are engaged in their childrens' learning

It's just not true.

Higher income families can afford to take more time off, especially salaried workers, and are often two-parent households. This gives those parents time that hourly-based workers, poor, or single-parent households literally can not afford to spare.

They don't love or "value" their children's education any less, but they are in a situation where being as involved as those more fortunate than them is so much more difficult.

Malcolm Gladwell has written about this - https://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Kimberly-McCreight/dp/006235...

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#348

Post by pnathan »

l33tbro wrote: post #191
pnathan wrote: post #184

Politely, this is not a new problem. Nor is it untypical for the upper crust to have issues with their kids, if myths and tales from earlier times are to be believed. I can confidently say that screen addiction is kind of a thing for many kids. They can't bear to be without it. I notice my baby stares at the glowing screens, the phones, the computers. He also stares at fires. Brightness is attractive, apparently. But…

The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each breakthrough for granted. Sure, we're spinning faster and faster, as you say. But sometimes I think it's actually the FOMO mechanism built into social media that is keeping us unimpressed by the amazing technology powering it. Kind of a cruel joke really.

> The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each breakthrough for granted.

That's just your perspective and the people you deal with. Many people I know over 40 are amazed. Perspective....

A lot of the technology is respun other technology, and that does take the luster off.

Personally I think a lot of the social media stuff is bunk, particularly the bits that prioritize zero-content fluff. But things like Mastodon, Hacker News, or Wordpress (remember twitter was microblogging) have spawned deep and thoughtful engagement with the world and others.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#349

Post by Brockenstein »

jancsika wrote: post #49
careersuicide wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the one thing about technology I'm old fashioned about (I roll my eyes hard when people say stuff like "You should delete your Facebook account, you'll be better off."). If I'm eating food with someone else the phone goes away. The only exception is if in the course of conversation an easily googleable question is asked and both the other person/people and I are actually interested in the answer inste…

So the question that I don't know the answer to: would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to them ) had cellphones not existed? Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only feign interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

>would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to them) had cellphones not existed?

certainly some would

>Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only feign interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

I think that people are addicted or at least oblivious at how attached to their phones they are. And they see plenty of other people engaging in the same behavior, which makes it a social norm and validates that behavior. Everyone does it, so it's OK.

Although I can't help but chuckle, because the same sorts of people who wanted to look down on me back in the day for spending hours in front of a computer, building a website, learning how to program, or playing games, are glued to their phones nearly every second they can manage to find. When it came time to practice the sort of etiquette that they preached, they failed miserably.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#350

Post by marbletiles »

SunnyCanuck wrote: post #62

Have two kids, 14/12. They've grown up as fully connected kids, have always had access to their own devices, never more than a year or two behind the Big Now. We have never imposed "limits for the sake of limits" on their screen time. I find the idea preposterous, frankly. We have no issue connecting with them, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc. If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone…

> I find the idea preposterous, frankly.

This seems extreme. The idea generally talked about is "we're not yet sure about the effects of prolonged phone use on development of social skills and mental health, and related impacts on physical development. What's more, we know that adults are finding themselves with hard-to-break negative habits surrounding their phone use. And we know that app companies are A/B testing to the nth degree in an attempt to drive engagement ever higher. So caution is indicated here, even if we don't yet know precisely how much is warranted"

That doesn't seem in the least "preposterous" to me. And your sample size is tiny, and you don't have a control group: who knows what your family dynamic would be like if your kids had boundaries around their usage of devices?

As others have said, this is fundamentally different to the moral panics of the past. Back then, it was "kids are doing X, which I didn't do, and X is therefore bad." Now it is vastly more "I am realising that Y is bad for me, and I'm a full-grown adult. Perhaps I shouldn't let my kids run free with Y either".

This isn't "novels are corrupting our girls", it's much closer to "hang on, this smoking business may not actually be improving our health and vitality, and we might consider only letting little Jimmy have 20 a day. Yes, yes, even though we have no issue running in the park with him, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc"

Post reply on HN