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

Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 270 posts

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#251

Post by thomastjeffery »

nawtacawp wrote: post #99
thomastjeffery wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wary of the proposed solutions. I spent very significant time during my childhood using computers. At the time, I would have had scarcely anything to prove that time was in any way "useful". I would have been hard pressed to convince others that my behavior was not detrimental. Because I did spend so much time freely using computers, I learned how to use them. I learned about Linux, partitioning, bootloaders, pro…

I would imagine a lot of us here who grew up in 90s would have the same experience. However, I do not see the same parallel to using a mobile device dominated by facebook, Snapchat, emojis and games. There is nothing to tinker with. I also don’t believe that mobile device use bridges to computer use — which could possibly cause a child to show interest in ‘how are these apps made?’

That's the problem with locked down devices.

It seems like no one cared that when we got powerful supercomputers that fit in our pockets, we couldn't use them like real computers.

These arbitrary limitations are the real problem. I don't think adding to the collective fear of children using computers will help change that. It's more likely to convince parents to choose more control and censorship.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#252

Post by thomastjeffery »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #175
thomastjeffery wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wary of the proposed solutions. I spent very significant time during my childhood using computers. At the time, I would have had scarcely anything to prove that time was in any way "useful". I would have been hard pressed to convince others that my behavior was not detrimental. Because I did spend so much time freely using computers, I learned how to use them. I learned about Linux, partitioning, bootloaders, pro…

Is an (Android or Apple) tablet a computer though?

They are severely arbitrarily limited ones.

That's a very related problem.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#253

Post by thomastjeffery »

scotty79 wrote: post #112
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, but back then, computers required much more intellectual work to get some satisfaction out of them. Today, you can just consume intensively on an iPad, and never learn anything about computers.

I have a childhood friend who played as much on the computer as I did. He even wrote some simple games himself (as I did) but he is not a software developer now and I am. You can give hundred kids lego technic and most of them won't become engineers.

That doesn't mean he learned nothing, or that his experience was detrimental.

I'm simply concerned about the collective fear parents have of their own children's liberty.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#254

Post by thomastjeffery »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #122
thomastjeffery wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my parents had limited my amount of time spent using a computer or paying video games, I would never have gone down the path that led me to here. I have extended family who have done this, and the difference is palpable.

We restricted our kids computer time and it hasn't stopped them entering the industry.

Did they get to install Linux during their early teenage years?

How much restriction?

What aspects of "the industry"?

What sort of experiences might they have missed? Will you ever know?

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#255

Post by thomastjeffery »

gambiting wrote: post #138
thomastjeffery wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my parents had limited my amount of time spent using a computer or paying video games, I would never have gone down the path that led me to here. I have extended family who have done this, and the difference is palpable.

I mean....I work as a professional C++ programmer in the games industry, and until I was about 12-14, my computer time was limited to 1 hour a day during the week days, 2 hours a day during the weekend. But then I would spend all my other free time reading, and I would read programming books and game guides instead. I have "experienced" many games by reading their game guides from start to finish, without having actu…

Did you make it through? Yes.

Be wary of survivor bias. Not everyone is like you, and not every similar situation is the same.

I grew from my free experience with computers, and I hope every child can have that opportunity.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#256

Post by thomastjeffery »

xy55 wrote: post #100
thomastjeffery wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wary of the proposed solutions. I spent very significant time during my childhood using computers. At the time, I would have had scarcely anything to prove that time was in any way "useful". I would have been hard pressed to convince others that my behavior was not detrimental. Because I did spend so much time freely using computers, I learned how to use them. I learned about Linux, partitioning, bootloaders, pro…

Do you believe that your experience is typical?

Even if I am in a slim minority, I think it is impossible to tell what children will find similar interests. A culture that keeps children away from those experiences affects everyone.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#257

Post by thomastjeffery »

pmarreck wrote: post #168
thomastjeffery wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If using a computer is addictive, what is the response? I am concerned with any action that takes a child's privacy or liberty from them. I haven't heard a proposed solution that does neither, and most do both. Someone with the absolute best intentions it's likely to take seriously harmful actions when privacy and liberty are disrespected.

Children have little of either privacy or liberty because they are still in the process of learning how best to utilize their privacy and liberty under the guidance of a parent. Now, if you were to empirically argue (with data/evidence) on the importance of privacy and liberty in children, that’s a different story, but since when was parenting driven by science? :O

> Now, if you were to empirically argue (with data/evidence)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot...

My personal experiences are valid.

Fear and control would have directly affected me, and I am certain that would have been to my detriment.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#258

Post by thomastjeffery »

dwaltrip wrote: post #114
thomastjeffery wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my parents had limited my amount of time spent using a computer or paying video games, I would never have gone down the path that led me to here. I have extended family who have done this, and the difference is palpable.

It's hard to draw vast conclusions from a few anecdotes. My parents limited video game time, and I think they were right to do so. I still managed to become a (fairly skilled, I hope) software developer.

It sucks when conclusions are drawn that ignore anecdotes.

I am not totally against parents controlling their children's behavior, but I am wary of how trivial it is to take that to the extreme, without even realizing it, because of a collective fear that is promoted by those around you.

I am quite certain that measures of control over my "computer use" would have been detrimental. It's important to not throw that aside in discussions like this.

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#259

Post by pmarreck »

le-mark wrote: post #209
pmarreck wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well at least you're making a rational argument!

Indeed, intelligent people can debate in good faith[1], without battering one another with sources. Since a source (or out of context snippet) can be found to support nearly any assertion, sources are not the end all. Often times, source ladden arguments devolve to a debate of source validity and authoritativeness. Which to me, is boring. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I suppose there should be a balance of source-citation, with sources preferred which establish a broadly-accepted concordance (such as a meta-study of studies) instead of a single study (in which case you would be correct).

To me, rational arguments are the leaps between facts established by evidence, so both are necessary to some degree.

In online conversations devoid of any citation, things seem to far too often veer into wild speculation, unsubstantiated opinion/belief, and most egregious, ad hominem/stereotyping/etc.

I was unaware of the Principle of Charity, thanks for educating me!

Re: Apple shareholders push for study of phone addiction in children

#260

Post by pmarreck »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #257
pmarreck wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children have little of either privacy or liberty because they are still in the process of learning how best to utilize their privacy and liberty under the guidance of a parent. Now, if you were to empirically argue (with data/evidence) on the importance of privacy and liberty in children, that’s a different story, but since when was parenting driven by science? :O

> Now, if you were to empirically argue (with data/evidence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot... My personal experiences are valid. Fear and control would have directly affected me, and I am certain that would have been to my detriment.

It is valid, but it cannot be evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Post reply on HN