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

171–180 of 238 posts

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

#171

Post by Alex3917 »

icelancer wrote: post #162
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Not relevant unless your parents were showing you that before age 2.

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

#172

Post by nv-vn »

vilmosi wrote: post #166
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…

>>> 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.

As a teenager who's into tech, this is how I feel every time I read these comments. When I was first learning to program, I didn't get support. I had parents complaining about how I use the computer too much. Had they been any more assertive, I wouldn't have been able to continue down that path.

From the outside, people like to say "screen time" as if it's all one thing and all of it's bad. But we've seen studies showing that video games help people develop real-life skills. Talking to people online is just social interaction. Cyber bullying, on the other hand, isn't all that different from the real thing. What I'm getting at is that using a computer or cell phone isn't so different from doing stuff outside with your friends. There's a whole world of things online and not everyone uses it the same way. Lumping it all into some big box of evil and taking it away from your kid is really just the same as locking your kid inside and only giving them the internet.

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

#173

Post by jcsergent20 »

As a 18 year old starting my first year of college, this article has essentially pointed out every single fear and worry I have had in the last 5 months and given the direct cause of these thoughts. I had a hunch that the mindset of raising kids in the last decades where the cause of this, but it is quite releaving to see some facts behind it. I hope the upcoming generation of parents adapt these recommended parenting strategies, but I fear that the state of parenting is heading to more of an extreme in the opposite direction.

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

#174

Post by ryanianian »

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…

Good points. But personally, I wouldn't use software to enforce any rules. (I would have felt extremely patronized by such software at any age.)

But I may add some tech to see if the rules are being followed. I think that problem may be more tractable tech-wise. And (at least if I were the kid) it would be a lot less insufferable since it would give the kid the freedom to "break" the rule when he/she legitimately wanted/needed to and enables a conversation rather than serving as a dictator of policy.

I'm not a parent so I can't really comment on how easy it is, but I think if you're automating it you may be losing out on a key parenting moment and that's enforcement and inviting conversation about the rule and why it matters.

(Personally I remember many of the occasions where I broke a rule and then got "the talk" about why the rule was important - quite valuable in retrospect. If there had just been a software-enforcer I likely would have rebelled and/or tried to find a workaround.)

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

#175

Post by wvenable »

bubbleRefuge wrote: post #6
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 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.

You might also be forced to consume more challenging content because literally nothing else is on. I remember watching the original Star Trek on Sunday mornings as a young child because nothing else was on. If cartoons were on 24/7 I might never have explored that.

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

#176

Post by wvenable »

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.

Absolutely. But with a lot of Youtube content aimed at kids, Youtubers are definitely promoting products indirectly.

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

#177

Post by wufufufu »

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…

This assumes that kids would prefer watching digital video above all else. Just get a trampoline or something. The friends will come over.

If watching is what your kids truly prefer in life, then my view is that you're not going to change that.

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

#178

Post by snambi »

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…

Watching too much ipad or phone does impact the kids' eye sight. Also kids are super restless and angry when they are glued to a mobile device. Otherwise their behavior is normal.

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

#179

Post by Nition »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #139
jonlucc wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but then when you turned off the computer, you might have gone to sit in front of the TV with your family, or played a board game, or talk on the phone with your friends. All of those things can happen online, and so I don't know that it's fair to compare computer usage of the 90s with computer usage today.

It's fair to say computer's of today can turn off as well as the computers of the 90s.

Better really, my computer turns itself off when I shut it down now. I used to have to do it manually once it was "now safe to turn off your computer."

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

#180

Post by AnimalMuppet »

icelancer wrote: post #162
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In addition to what Alex3917 said: I grew up 20 years before you. That's not what life was like for me growing up. For the generation before mine, well, they were growing up in the 1940s and 50s. Not many kids in the 50s were watching tons of video before the age of 2.
Post reply on HN