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

71–80 of 238 posts

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

#71

Post by ryanianian »

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…

Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. Saying "no screen time" for an arbitrarily large amount of time seems anathema to growing up today, but saying "no more than N hours a day" (where N depends on age and kid and what the kid does for the time) seems quite reasonable.

This isn't just about screen time imho, it's about ensuring balance when kids don't yet know what's best for them. A "healthy relationship" doesn't mean "free to do as much of it as they want to the detriment of other aspects of being a healthy human being."

Anecdote: My best friend growing up was super into soccer. So much so that other parts of his life were suffering and he had little life outside of it. So his parents set a weekly limit on the number of hours he could practice and play. He hated it at the time. But during his down time he found programming and now he's a programmer and soccer isn't nearly that important to him anymore.

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

#72

Post by zwieback »

tboyd47 wrote: post #49
zwieback wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"automatically stop listening" is of course what young people always do to their elders but once the shoe is on the other foot you'll realize the wisdom of all that outdated advice. The details change but the basic patterns are eternally the same.

It feels like the difference between the parent as a judge and a guide and the parent as a manager and secretary. My parents seemed to worry more about preventing kids from getting into trouble or making the wrong friends. My wife and I worry more about how to get them out of the house and make friends, period... and I hear this sentiment echoed every so often on HN (this being one of them). How do you get teenagers…

Yeah, it can be tough. We sometimes kicked our kids out of the house and didn't go out with them. It helps to have a yard and other neighborhood kids in that case.

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

#73

Post by bg4 »

tboyd47 wrote: post #49
zwieback wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"automatically stop listening" is of course what young people always do to their elders but once the shoe is on the other foot you'll realize the wisdom of all that outdated advice. The details change but the basic patterns are eternally the same.

It feels like the difference between the parent as a judge and a guide and the parent as a manager and secretary. My parents seemed to worry more about preventing kids from getting into trouble or making the wrong friends. My wife and I worry more about how to get them out of the house and make friends, period... and I hear this sentiment echoed every so often on HN (this being one of them). How do you get teenagers…

Possibly because the neighborhood is no longer considered "safe" for children to roam and explore.

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

#74

Post by mholmes680 »

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…

I think where we can agree to disagree is we both want them to have a healthy relationship with technology, but we're disagreeing on what that healthy relationship is.

At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect. As a part of that, if i read and believe that technology is rewiring their brains for reason X, Y, Z then that's what i fix. Not if it makes them happy or not; I'm not their friend first.

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

#75

Post by 282883392 »

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…

On the other hand, 24 hour screen time is not healthy either. Sitting there hitting that dopamine all day every day is not going to lead to success, especially if they are participating in more passive activities like youtube or mobile gaming. Even going to a friends house to watch youtube is probably better than sitting at home, as a social activity rather than an individual one. Additionally, being bored and or having downtime is beneficial for ones mental health.

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

#76

Post by twoquestions »

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…

> If that is getting into a little trouble somewhere down the street, so be it.

That sounds like a wonderful way to get killed by either the law or your neighbors if you're the wrong social status.

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

#77

Post by yoz-y »

adamnemecek wrote: post #65
barsonme wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you determine which kid to steer towards what? Nobody will like all of the fundamentals but that is just how things are. For me the biggest determinant factor for whether I liked a subject or not was the quality of the teacher. However "make teachers better at teaching" is not really a scalable solution.

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

#78

Post by chaosite »

stinkytaco wrote: post #22
organsnyder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main advantage to Netflix (and YouTube, with a Red subscription) is the lack of advertising. My kids probably see 1/20th the number of ads that I saw growing up.

My daughter, who's primary video consumption is on Youtube, has started to get to the age that she's concerned about fashion, decoration, etc. I realized that she's getting a lot of this from Youtube, not via direct advertisements, but via "influencers" who have been "encouraged" to place a product, either via money or free products. In some ways this is far more insidious. At least with ads you can learn to tune the…

But there used to be such a thing as free content.

Like the Flash animations I used to watch on albinoblacksheep and newgrounds in middle school, and early YouTube.

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

#79

Post by mercer »

whataretensors wrote: post #69
andrepd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Hyperbole? Incoherence?

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

#80

Post by adamnemecek »

yoz-y wrote: post #77
adamnemecek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you determine which kid to steer towards what? Nobody will like all of the fundamentals but that is just how things are. For me the biggest determinant factor for whether I liked a subject or not was the quality of the teacher. However "make teachers better at teaching" is not really a scalable solution.

They pick themselves?

You don’t really need teachers.

Post reply on HN