Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond • Hacker News Board

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#141

Post by bcjdjsndon » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:47 PM UTC

kqr wrote: post #29

This can be tricky. I know my mother loves me unconditionally, but I also have strong memories of her shutting herself inside her study to read textbooks and journals, and children were not allowed to disturb unless she was strictly needed to handle an accident. I have the same need for cognition as my mother, but I opt not to lock myself in my office. Instead I tell my kids, "I'm around if you need me and I'll keep…

This is the downside to nuclear families. Italian families with 3 generations in one house don't have this problem, devices or not

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#142

Post by bcjdjsndon » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:48 PM UTC

andai wrote: post #40

kqr wrote: post #29

This can be tricky. I know my mother loves me unconditionally, but I also have strong memories of her shutting herself inside her study to read textbooks and journals, and children were not allowed to disturb unless she was strictly needed to handle an accident. I have the same need for cognition as my mother, but I opt not to lock myself in my office. Instead I tell my kids, "I'm around if you need me and I'll keep…

I don't have kids but I've been thinking about how, I would probably need some kind of office separate from the house. In fact that's probably a big part of why offices exist in the first place. If I had kids here then for much of the day, they would be trying to interact with me and I would be either getting distracted from work or shooing them away. What I'm actually there I would want to be fully present with them…

[flagged]

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#143

Post by ElevenLathe » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

acessoproibido wrote: post #130

Insanity wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, remember how back in the day people spent about 6-8 hours reading the newspaper. /s

You have a point but as a kid I would definitely spend that much time reading (mostly novels but also newspapers). I was definitely not present or available when reading. I think this is all a very complex topic and the desire to find a clearcut simple answer is more damaging than helpful

Between the morning/evening news, a sports game or TV movie, reading the newspaper, and a bit of novel reading, my parents in the 90s were just as physically-available-but-in-their-own-world as somebody scrolling TikTok for 4-5 hours a day. I think the difference is that reading the newspaper isn't literally a dopamine-fueled addiction and turning the page in a novel isn't the psychological equivalent of pulling a slot machine lever.

We have lots of evidence about how harmful it is to have parents that are in the throes of gambling addiction. Folks, it's not good for the children. It's in fact pretty bad, even if they don't gamble away the home equity and the college fund.

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#144

Post by ramblenode » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #107

I find these studies specifically frustrating because they don't answer the most interesting question - is it damaging if your caregiver uses phone a lot but remains responsive. This study specifically excludes it, and fair enough when being honest about the statistical inference and not overreaching, but that is the question I find most interesting as someone who uses my phone to get away from my desk but keep work…

> is it damaging if your caregiver uses phone a lot but remains responsive.

> but that is the question I find most interesting as someone who uses my phone to get away from my desk but keep work going so I can spend time with my kids while doing my job.

This is probably more relevant to people who are using their phones for passive entertainment than work. The difference is that your kids are more engaging than your work, so your attention will naturally be pulled toward your kids, whereas parents who are scrolling social media or playing games are going to be more drawn to their phones and are going to have punctuated and shallow interactions with their kids.

Personally, I don't think I've ever observed someone who was actively engaged with their phone who was also fully engaged with the people around them.

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#145

Post by ramblenode » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 3:13 PM UTC

pmg101 wrote: post #126

le-mark wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but in the past it was work. I suggest that reading previously took the roll devices take today. When my parents weren’t at work they were reading as often as not; newspapers and novels.

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, novels were regarded as the video games or TikTok of their age — shallow, addictive, and dangerous [0] You can interpret that as either "there's always a moral panic about anything new" or (my own take) "this is how far we have fallen". [0] https://clivethompson.medium.com/why-novels-will-destroy-you...

There may always be a moral panic but that doesn't mean every moral panic is equally misplaced.

Most high school age children of the 1800s weren't inclined to read novels 12+ hours a day and neglect their sleep and hygiene to finish a few more chapters...

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#146

Post by 627467 » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #129

coldest_summer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beware the helicopters. Give kids the freedom to make mistakes and suffer the (nonfatal, no loss of life or limb) consequences. Yes, there are cases to intervene, but generally, you should let your kids hurt themselves more. Pain is a very important form of learning. By overprotecting them, they become very vulnerable adults, then worse things happen.

> you should let your kids hurt themselves more This is quite presumptuous. Even minor injuries can add up to long term damage. We don't need to keep our kids inside or wrapped in crazy layers to protect them. We also don't need them to get hurt a lot for them to learn what's good or bad.

I thought there was a difference between "hurt more" and "hurt a lot" even when accounting for subjetiveness of both.

but I guess part of this "screen based society" we live in is the loss of nuance and charitable interpretation.

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#147

Post by halfmatthalfcat » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #129

coldest_summer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beware the helicopters. Give kids the freedom to make mistakes and suffer the (nonfatal, no loss of life or limb) consequences. Yes, there are cases to intervene, but generally, you should let your kids hurt themselves more. Pain is a very important form of learning. By overprotecting them, they become very vulnerable adults, then worse things happen.

> you should let your kids hurt themselves more This is quite presumptuous. Even minor injuries can add up to long term damage. We don't need to keep our kids inside or wrapped in crazy layers to protect them. We also don't need them to get hurt a lot for them to learn what's good or bad.

It sounds like your concept of “minor” may be calibrated too high. Kids need to test boundaries to learn limits. They need to learn limits to live safely while understanding their actual capabilities. This involves getting hurt sometimes. Is it fun? No. Do you learn a lesson almost every time? Yes. This is the compounding that actually matters.

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#148

Post by GeoAtreides » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

n4r9 wrote: post #108

GeoAtreides wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure where the problem is? look at maps only in the car, mute whatsapp and then check it from time to time. seems pretty straightforward.

Addictive behaviour is rarely cured by telling the addict to "just stop doing it".

is OP addicted to checking out maps and the parents group on whatsapp?

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#149

Post by jappgar » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

Insanity wrote: post #127

jappgar wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same is true if you're reading a newspaper

Ah yes, remember how back in the day people spent about 6-8 hours reading the newspaper. /s

The losers spending 8hrs of free time on their phone were just watching TV before all this. Bad parents are not a novel invention.

Re: Parental device use and the adolescent-caregiver attachment bond

#150

Post by tgv » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

paytonjjones wrote: post #139

tgv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A much more plausible causal explanation Why is that much more plausible? It implies that it has always been there, and that nothing has changed since the last century, which is unlikely. Unless you want to introduce some other recent factor, but that is going to be even less likely. And why? Because other studies have shown how addictive "phone" use is, and how it isolates people. And addicts (drugs, alcohol) are…

I find it more plausible given my priors as a research psychologist. Correlational overlap between self-report scales is common. It's actually so common that at decent sample sizes, almost any arbitrary self-report will significantly correlate purely on valence . For instance, one should expect a correlation between people self-reporting "I had a tough childhood" with "I frequently suffer from skin rashes". This is b…

I know survey data is weak. I think you'll find that 95% of all psychological research is bad.

But your explanation isn't "much more plausible". It is based on absolutely nothing, and the priori are against it. You only have a vague idea of correlation between answers (based on probably equally unreliable papers), but nothing on the missing factor. In this paper, however, they at least take some effort to find structure in the responses, and this factor correlated stronger than the others. Shaky, but it has a basis: phones/social media/etc. are terribly addictive.

> In contrast, psychologists mightily struggle to find replicable experimental results. That's what you need here.

No, that's not needed here. The paper might not be good, but we need to get rid of the phones. It's obvious that it's a problem. Just try to take someone's phone away. What "we" do not need here is distraction from the problem.