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

221–230 of 238 posts

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

#221

Post by closeparen »

dvdkhlng wrote: post #205
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…

> Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. I think that's the center of the problem. In the current times online media and mobile apps are designed to maximize the participant's screen time by being as addictive as possible. Even grown-ups face problems self-regulating with regards to an "adversary" that invests huge resources in getting our eye-balls (and data and ad views). Restricting screen-time bec…

The most sophisticated adtech in the world doesn't hold a candle to the engagement/addictive power of user-curated sites like HN and Reddit.

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

#222

Post by mmjaa »

nv-vn wrote: post #172
vilmosi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 sho…

Its not about making big lumps of evil. Its about having a productive attitude about technology.

My kids do have access to technology - they have laptops, and a small collection of video games. But they're not allowed to just zone out for hours on end, consuming pixels.

I gave them laptops so they'd learn what real computers are. And, they have! The (10 and 7 year old) kids are coding!

But there is a huge difference between this level of engagement, and that of the decadent-consumer-of-mobile-content that we've produced in the last 5 years. There's a huge difference between the endless hours I spent, typing in programs from magazines on my 8-bit systems in the 80's, and just downloading the latest pixel-blah on the No-friend-o.

Kids should have technology - but they should be given the opportunity to become masters of it, not slaves. That's the decision that has to be made, in my opinion, by the modern parent. Tech has evolved to enslave us - it also can serve. Kids who know how to make technology serve them and not the other way around, are the only hope for the future ..

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

#223

Post by mmjaa »

underwater wrote: post #147
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…

> They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. That’s an awfully cynical observation for a kid to make.

I dunno, I don't think its that cynical - they grew up, after all, with friends and peers who actually talk to each other, engage each other with play projects, do stuff outside with each other. I think its more that the situation is so dire, with the current new-teen generation, who expect an App-store like experience in their daily lives.

To arrive in high school, and nobody wants to talk about anything other than their Candy Crush score, or whether or not "Peer Y" has an "iPhone X", and so on .. this was a bit of a disappointment to my kids, raised as they were to have human interaction be a priority over technology and material possession.

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

#224

Post by olavk »

underwater wrote: post #147
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…

> They're the ones pointing out how their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers. That’s an awfully cynical observation for a kid to make.

Or they are just telling the parents what they want to hear.

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

#225

Post by bornonline1 »

closeparen wrote: post #221
dvdkhlng wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most kids don't know how to self-regulate screen time. I think that's the center of the problem. In the current times online media and mobile apps are designed to maximize the participant's screen time by being as addictive as possible. Even grown-ups face problems self-regulating with regards to an "adversary" that invests huge resources in getting our eye-balls (and data and ad views). Restricting screen-time bec…

The most sophisticated adtech in the world doesn't hold a candle to the engagement/addictive power of user-curated sites like HN and Reddit.

Or 4chan

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

#226

Post by Double_a_92 »

ryanianian wrote: post #71
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…

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…

I don't like to generalize it into the term "screen-time". There are so many things you could do there. It's like if you would limit "desk time", no matter if they are doing homework, crafting or fixing something, doing some puzzle,...

In my view there are four main categories, of screentime.

* Research

* Passive entertainment (watching videos, playing "pointless" games)

* Active entertainment (playing "real" games where you need to make decisions and other skills)

* Socializing (Messengers, Facebook, ...)

Point 2 is probably the most toxic for people. Since you waste lots of time, lose other hobbies and probably get deeply influenced by the things you watch.

Point 3 might be the next on the list, since you might get stressed from constantly socializing... All that matters is raising your "social" status, and you start neglecting other things in your life.

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

#227

Post by jvvw »

jimmaswell wrote: post #202
photojosh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got kids in upper primary school now, and trying to think through all this carefully. Our current rule is that you can have an hour of screen time for every hour of reading, music practice, etc, and after certain chores are done. Plus the screen time has to be at an appropriate time - for instance first thing in the morning and last thing at night are no-gos. They're currently on a ban until the end of the week…

Here's my anecdote. My parents tried to limit video games (but not tv, they weren't very rational) to some amount of hours a day. Only result was that I hated it, it made me resent them at the time, and I'd do what I could to get around it. I don't think I'm an iota better off for it. They'd try to pull the same nonsense with the computer too which ended up being what got me a successful career. It was detrimental if…

We have a morning restriction on school days because it's nigh on impossible to get the kids to school if they start playing games! (We also have an evening restriction so doesn't interfere with bedtime or disrupt sleep but are otherwise easy-going. Still not sure if we are doing the right thing or not)

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

#228

Post by bpizzi »

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…

  [...] their high-school is taken over by mobile-phone-zombies, utterly un-interesting and useless peers.
  So, yeah. Its an epidemic. Kids don't need technology
This is not technology, this is addiction.

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

#229

Post by upvotinglurker »

bubbleRefuge wrote: post #5

I find it tough to get my kids to socialize more without scheduling them especially on weekends. Daycare is good because they exercise and run wild. But weekends are hard because the kids are just not out there anymore, so you have to coordinate with other parents.

Since it sounds like they're getting plenty of socializing in on weekdays, is not getting it on weekends that much of a problem?

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

#230

Post by nv-vn »

mmjaa wrote: post #222
nv-vn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

Its not about making big lumps of evil. Its about having a productive attitude about technology. My kids do have access to technology - they have laptops, and a small collection of video games. But they're not allowed to just zone out for hours on end, consuming pixels. I gave them laptops so they'd learn what real computers are. And, they have! The (10 and 7 year old) kids are coding! But there is a huge difference…

>There's a huge difference between the endless hours I spent, typing in programs from magazines on my 8-bit systems in the 80's, and just downloading the latest pixel-blah on the No-friend-o.

I don't think that there is. Only a few years ago, I learned by typing in programs from YouTube videos and online forums. This doesn't mean YouTube and forums have eroded our culture; I think they are the new media and serve the same purpose as magazines. My success was because of my access to video games and the internet, not in spite of it, and in a different era it would've been through computer magazines and access to "toys" like the C64.

Post reply on HN