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

101–110 of 238 posts

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

#101

Post by munificent »

organsnyder wrote: post #8
bubbleRefuge wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cut the cable thinking that would make a difference, but youtube and Netflix have infinte content. Back in the days of broadcast only TV, you watch your show and its over, go play.

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.

Alas, that isn't the case. Your kids see 1/20th of the explicitly obvious ads, and probably 20x the product placements, Instagram "brand ambassadors", and other subtle tricks that advertisers devised to get past our ability to mental filter out clearly-marked ads.

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

#102

Post by wvenable »

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 had a computer at a young age in the 80's and started programming in early elementary school.

I also have a young child who is absolutely absorbed in computers, youtube, etc. I understand how much their collective social lives revolves around it. But even all the time I spend on computers, I still find the experiences vaguely disturbing. The effects on mental health are immediately obvious -- a few hours of "screen time" has very obvious negative implications. There is also a quality of addiction to it all. The computer/smartphone is all.

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

#103

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

It's not just their executive function. It's their sense of time.

In much video, a cut[1] happens every three seconds (I don't know if this is true for specifically children's video). This tunes their sense of time - if you don't like what you're looking at, in three seconds it will be completely different. That's not what life was like when I grew up; it's not what life was like for any generation before mine. It seems to me that there has to be some effects from this...

[1] A "cut" in video is an instantaneous change of viewpoint (so called because, back in the film days, the only way you could get it was by physically cutting and splicing the film).

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

#104

Post by walshemj »

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…

Or to look good on application forms

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

#105

Post by padobson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #96
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to speak for OP, but I think his point in referencing Marx is that our education system revolves around the collective and that the values and needs of the individual have been lost.

It's stupid to reference Marx in that context; institutions focussed on common centralized interest predate Marx by approximately the entire age of civilization on Earth.

But neo-Marxist class warfare (most commonly referred to as identity politics in the zeitgeist) is absolutely about diminishing the value of the individual in favor of elevating historically oppressed groups.

Better to recognize that subjection to evil and suffering are universal, and the best way to combat them is through individual growth and responsibility - something modern education is severely lacking.

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

#106

Post by wvenable »

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…

The speed at which this has changing is ridiculous -- I have two kids that are about 12 years apart in age. In a decade, things have already changed dramatically; it was a small issue then but now it's an epidemic.

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

#107

Post by j2bax »

adamnemecek wrote: post #82
l9k wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The alternative is ineffectively shoving shit down their throat?

I'd say its more of a broad taste-test of various shit varieties. From my recollection, grade school didn't go too deep on any one subject.

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

#108

Post by adamnemecek »

yoz-y wrote: post #92
adamnemecek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pick themselves? You don’t really need teachers.

I believe that much of the unemployment problem for people with higher education diplomas is because people have to choose their career around 14-18 years old and fail to do the right choice. I do not think that pushing this to an earlier age is a good idea. I have also worked with people who came from the modern "sans-teachers" schools. They were terrible. My impression is that such education reinforces pre-concieve…

> I believe that much of the unemployment problem for people with higher education diplomas is because people have to choose their career around 14-18 years old and fail to do the right choice.

...and also the fact that school is very inefficient. Like out of each 45 minute block, I would say that only like maybe 20 minutes is spent productively. Like I think that during one school day, you waste over 50% of the time.

> I have also worked with people who came from the modern "sans-teachers" schools. They were terrible.

The same can be said about people who came from with-teachers school.

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

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

padobson wrote: post #105
dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's stupid to reference Marx in that context; institutions focussed on common centralized interest predate Marx by approximately the entire age of civilization on Earth.

But neo-Marxist class warfare (most commonly referred to as identity politics in the zeitgeist) is absolutely about diminishing the value of the individual in favor of elevating historically oppressed groups. Better to recognize that subjection to evil and suffering are universal, and the best way to combat them is through individual growth and responsibility - something modern education is severely lacking.

> neo-Marxist class warfare (most commonly referred to as identity politics in the zeitgeist)

Identity politics is basically a distraction (sometimes intentional, sometimes not) from development of proletarian class identity, a prerequisite for Marxist (neo- or otherwise) class warfare.

Now, it is clearly, when engaged in by the pro-capitalist neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party (and, also, in the White/Christian identity politics form frequently practiced by the Republican Party, though the people practicing that often rail against identity politics and would never acknowledge engaging in it), an element of class warfare, but by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat; that's more anti-Marxist than neo-Marxist, though, so it still doesn't jibe with your description.

Post reply on HN