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

The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 238 posts

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#61

Post by Chris2048 »

monkmartinez wrote: post #12
stinkytaco wrote: post #4

There's a certain irony in this. By putting restrictions on kids (no screens, digital downtime, etc), we expect them to become self-driven. This is a great idea in theory, but it also seems pretty likely that a kid will go to their friends house to watch Youtube videos, when I would just as soon have them (and their friends, if necessary) at my house doing that where at least I have some sense of what they are watchi…

I don't expect my kids to be "self-driven", in the sense of "productive" when I restrict screen time. They can literally do whatever they want... if that is mope around bored as hell, so be it. If that is digging a hole in the back yard, so be it. If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it. If they want to read the latest "Diary of a wimpy kid", so be it. The only thing I am after is…

What do you mean by "getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street"?

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#62

Post by brewdad »

Alex3917 wrote: post #7
stinkytaco wrote: post #4

There's a certain irony in this. By putting restrictions on kids (no screens, digital downtime, etc), we expect them to become self-driven. This is a great idea in theory, but it also seems pretty likely that a kid will go to their friends house to watch Youtube videos, when I would just as soon have them (and their friends, if necessary) at my house doing that where at least I have some sense of what they are watchi…

The reason it's recommended that kids under age two have zero screen time has nothing to do with the content though, it has purely to do with whether the rapidly changing imagery is increasing the risk for ADHD and damaging their executive function or whatever.

I had always heard that it had to do more with the development of their eyesight. Young children need visual stimulus across a range of distances to reduce the risk of vision problems when they are older. It may by BS. I don't really know.

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#63

Post by [deleted] »

merpnderp wrote: post #45
tischler wrote: post #19

.

Kids have less unstructured time than in a few generations. And they often have little saw over how that time is structured. And that structured time is usually spent on pointless exercises determined by adults. They aren't helping grandpa on the farm and they aren't reading comic books with their friends in a tree fort. They're being ran around by their moms to whatever sport or activity she can find to make them mo…

[deleted]

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#64

Post by akhilcacharya »

kelukelugames wrote: post #18

How do I make a 12 weeks old the next chloe kim/barack obama?

Spend a lot of time identifying early talents, do high school competitions related to those talents, get them into a top school and then just see what happens after that.

The "top school" thing seems pretty key to me, tbh.

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#65

Post by adamnemecek »

barsonme wrote: post #60
adamnemecek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what OP said. You can totally give them freedom while providing some guidance. Instead of siting in class, let them read things they are interested in.

When I was 8 I'd have only read books on dinosaurs, baseball, and the Legend of Zelda. It took me until halfway or more through college to realize I really liked programming, way more than I did my other majors I'd invested considerable time and money in (medicine, politics). Kids, especially 8-year-olds, need a lot of guidance and need to learn the fundamentals. I'm very glad my parents and teachers worked hard to m…

Perfect! Now design the math curriculum so that it steers you towards game development (this would be individual) and you have a good educational system.

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#66

Post by l9k »

adamnemecek wrote: post #50
EliRivers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was programming at 8 but apparently to be "well rounded" I had to do all this other stuff I think restricting education from the age of 8 onwards based on what a given 8-year-old likes at that point is just asking for trouble.

Not what OP said. You can totally give them freedom while providing some guidance. Instead of siting in class, let them read things they are interested in.

Let them read things they are interested in? Yes

But kids don't know much about the world. Their interests will change. They need to be introduced to many (basic) subjects even if they fail to see the long-term benefits of the tools they learn.

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#68

Post by vanderZwan »

whataretensors wrote: post #15

Look at reward signals. Elementary through high school is a little sliver of what a collapsed marxist society looks like - no positive rewards signals just negative arbitrary ones. I was programming at 8 but apparently to be "well rounded" I had to do all this other stuff that non-coders deemed important. Meanwhile there was no "safe base" for me or anyone else who grew up poor. But at least now I can also now see sc…

> Elementary through high school is a little sliver of what a collapsed marxist society looks like

Wait, what? How the heck does Marx come into this?

Do you have any idea what the history of education is? Assembly-line education is a product of the Prussian military, Marx has nothing to do with that.

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#69

Post by whataretensors »

andrepd wrote: post #54
whataretensors wrote: post #15

Look at reward signals. Elementary through high school is a little sliver of what a collapsed marxist society looks like - no positive rewards signals just negative arbitrary ones. I was programming at 8 but apparently to be "well rounded" I had to do all this other stuff that non-coders deemed important. Meanwhile there was no "safe base" for me or anyone else who grew up poor. But at least now I can also now see sc…

> I was programming at 8 but apparently to be "well rounded" Well so was I (Turbo Pascal on DOS ftw), and thanks god responsible adults didn't let me sit in front of the PC all day, and made me learn languages, history, literature, philosophy, mathematics, science, etc. I'm also straining to see how the adjective "Marxist" found its way on your rant. I fail to see the applicability.

In regards to reward signals it seems similar when collapsed. No ownership. No way to succeed through creativity. No way to escape a degraded too-large-to-fail system. Maybe there's a better word for it?

Re: The Case for the “Self-Driven Child”

#70

Post by noxToken »

zachlatta wrote: post #58
monkmartinez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't expect my kids to be "self-driven", in the sense of "productive" when I restrict screen time. They can literally do whatever they want... if that is mope around bored as hell, so be it. If that is digging a hole in the back yard, so be it. If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it. If they want to read the latest "Diary of a wimpy kid", so be it. The only thing I am after is…

I deeply and thoroughly don't understand this mindset. Whether you like it or not, technology is part of growing up in the 21st century. It's not just an "outlet" or a place to waste time on YouTube, it's interwoven into everything in their lives. Their ability to gather information depends on it. Their social lives depend on it. Just as yours does. If you restrict access, you're pretending like a very crucial part o…

> Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube. I know this because I lived it and that's exactly what I did.

I think restricting screen time is part of building the healthy relationship. We're not an all digital society, so kids still need to interact with the outside world - this includes people.

Think about how vile people can be on the Internet when the person they're shouting at is a faceless username. Breaking this immersion to have your kid run up the street to watch YouTube videos with a friend is a bit different than doing it alone. You can explain that your child's friend is also online behind and anonymous username, so if they intend to say something mean to someone, you can say that the child may be hurting their own friend's feelings without even knowing it.

Restricting access doesn't have to be a "back in my day!" spiel. Sometimes it's exploring other avenues of entertainment. Sometimes it's partial restriction like reading for 30 minutes. Sometimes it's just making sure that the child still has a foot grounded in reality. I'm a huge advocate for a connected world, but even as a developer, I still have to talk to my colleagues to my left and to my right.

Post reply on HN