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

161–170 of 238 posts

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

#161

Post by icelancer »

282883392 wrote: post #75
zachlatta wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

I played video games 24/7 as a young child, and while I played sports in high school and college as well, my main love was always, always video gaming, coding, and using computers until 5 AM.

I am a parent now and I get restricting screen time for the sake of planning/scheduling, but not out of some utopian ideal. That never existed. Not when we were young and not when anyone else was, either. They just restricted reading the newspaper and books back then.

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

#162

Post by icelancer »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #103
Alex3917 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

>> That's not what life was like when I grew up; it's not what life was like for any generation before mine.

Sure it was. I am in my mid-30s and that describes every single anime or cartoon I watched.

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

#163

Post by amerkhalid »

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.

If this is true, next generation will be really interesting.

Every parent I have to talked to, says that Youtube and smartphones are the best thing for kids. Whatever we do, their kids are on the phones; restaurants, homes, car rides. And these are really young kids, some as young as 1 year old.

If their phone dies or there is network issue, these kids start to cry if it takes too long to fix the issue. I assumed this is normal for kids to demand constant entertainment or distraction. Now makes me wonder if this is other way around, and we are spoiling the kids by letting them watch TV/Youtube when they are too young.

Or if these parents give their kids phones only when with other adults.

As a new dad, all these things worry me. On one hand, I don't know if I can manage raising a child without smartphone. Why restrict something if there is no strong evidence against it (is there?). On other hand, why set a child for ADHD and other social issues just so that I can be lazy.

There is so much conflicting advice everywhere. I am reading "The New Father: A Dad's Guide to the First Year". EDIT: It does have a section on screen time and why AAP doesn't recommend any screen time for babies under 2 years old. Basically, same reasons as parent mentioned: cognitive control, but also motor skills are not developing as babies don't play with physical objects as much.

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

#164

Post by watwut »

LrnByTeach wrote: post #152
ryanianian wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relatio…

The problem with this "no more than N hours a day" is that - For parents it is hard to implement N hours/day on long term basis ( parents may be able to do for a week or month) - The parental control tools are too narrow in scope, good ones cost $10/month - on top of all this, you do not know what they are doing in those N hours/day , using 50% time for FB/Snap etc.. - It is ironic in this day and age of ML/Deeplearn…

Max n hours a day is significantly easier then unlimited time. Mostly because they can't regulate themselves which basically means that they act out when playing you much. It is not just that parent would dislike abstract idea of kid playing etc too mu ch, it is largely behavior the kid displays when it is playing too much.

You don't need high quality expensive software either. There are sufficient free ones.

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

#165

Post by majormajor »

mmjaa wrote: post #123
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…

Totally. (Parent here, checking in..) My kids get very limited screen time, and are expected to fill their life with art and activity that does not involve, at least not directly, cheap electrons. Expected, because its what we, their parents do by way of example. And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and use…

> And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers.

When I was in high school I thought my peers ware un-interesting and useless too. :D

I've been struggling, lately, to figure out a way to be able to tell "different" from "worse."

Shit we did, because we had nothing better to do: * drive around racing off stop lights. If this is reduced these days, that's probably good, since cars are way more powerful. * drive around aimlessly listening to music * toilet paper houses and other random vandalism * go to movies * watch tv * play video games * try to get laid * light random things on fire * screw around with computers (not in a particularly productive "learn to program" way - just learning a ton about soon-to-be-obsolete windows 9x maintenance and customization) * chained three-way phone calls to get a big group conversation going * watching music videos was pretty big

How much of that is really any better than dicking around on Snapchat, iMesssage, GroupMe, or whatever?

Note that I was both unproductive myself and disdainful of other teens. :)

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

#166

Post by vilmosi »

mmjaa wrote: post #123
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…

Totally. (Parent here, checking in..) My kids get very limited screen time, and are expected to fill their life with art and activity that does not involve, at least not directly, cheap electrons. Expected, because its what we, their parents do by way of example. And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and use…

>>> So, yeah. Its an epidemic. Kids don't need technology

How will they get interested in technology then. I suspect a lot of HH readers got into tech by actually using it first, either websites or games or whatever.

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

#167

Post by optimuspaul »

criddell wrote: post #150
mmjaa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. (Parent here, checking in..) My kids get very limited screen time, and are expected to fill their life with art and activity that does not involve, at least not directly, cheap electrons. Expected, because its what we, their parents do by way of example. And I'm damn proud of my kids now. They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and use…

> I'm not cool with 20 kids standing at the train station not talking to each other You probably don't want to take a vacation in Sweden then.

Or Minnesota

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

#168

Post by quickthrower2 »

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…

The GP said "I restrict screen time"

I take this as limit rather than ban. Which I think is a good thing. Screen time is addictive, especially for kids. We all know it. Try and pull your 4 year old away from the TV to get them ready and come back with your results.

It is like restricting (but not banning) sugar, and for older kids (depending on your country etc.), caffeine and alcohol.

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

#169

Post by dragonwriter »

mholmes680 wrote: post #74
zachlatta wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> At the end of the day, the job of the parent is to protect.

I disagree. At the end of the day the job of the parent is to prepare. That involves a mix of protection, education, and other things, including refraining from protection, at times.

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

#170

Post by EvanAnderson »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #157
EvanAnderson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching older movies and television shows today I'm struck by how much longer shots are and how there are so many fewer cuts. I'm sure that, to some extent, pacing in movies was dictated by the practicality of technology. Modern-day non-linear editing and digital production allows for more frequent cuts at a much lower expense. I wonder, however, to what extent there is a feedback loop occurring between audiences an…

In this context, I should note that my "3 seconds" number was from the 1970s. Does anybody have a more up-to-date number?

WIRED did an article in 2014 that pegs the number at 2.5 seconds. Amusingly, the professor cited in the article has the last name of "Cutting", which makes the article a little jarring to read to me (since I keep seeing the verb "cutting" and thinking about "cutting together" a movie).
Post reply on HN