Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 388 posts

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#231

Post by spraak »

libria wrote: post #47
citizenkeen wrote: post #7

'One of my favorite things you can do is plan a “device-free dinner.”' _A_ device free dinner? Why aren't all of them? These weird little "small gestures" make me feel like people have lost control of their homes. We have a landline expressly to give out to emergency contacts. And dinner is tech free. Every night. I think the main problem is tech has made everything _else_ easier, but parenting harder, and parents ju…

> _A_ device free dinner? Why aren't all of them? These weird little "small gestures" make me feel like people have lost control of their homes. Why should all dinners be distraction[1] free? I understand dinner is a social event for many cultures/families, but not every person wants this nor am I convinced it must be this way. I'm efficient with my eating and when the family wants to socialize we play Catan or sit a…

> Why should all dinners be distraction[1] free?

Well, one reason is mindfulness: being present to really just eating.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#232

Post by statictype »

rayiner wrote: post #172
forinti wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cellphones and these endless scrolling social apps that get our attention aren't really the same thing as books or even newspapers. They just seem to suck your ability to focus out of you and don't really give you back anything.

That's nonsense. My wife is always glued to her phone checking twitter/facebook/etc. and is way more informed than back in the bad old days when you had to get all your information from a handful of biased corporate newspapers.

He didn't say it gives you less information. He said they suck your ability to focus. That's not nonsense. I can see this happening with myself.

Twitter sound bites have slowly weakened my attention span for more long form articles. You can easily see this by looking at what sites are popular (Buzzfeed) and which are struggling to stay alive (rip Grantland)

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#233

Post by artur_makly »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #26
NTDF9 wrote: post #11

My cousin has a no tv policy in his home. The parents do watch tv but not in the presence of their 3 year old boy. They'd rather take the kid to play with other kids or swimming. This won't last, sure. But by the time the kid grows up to start making demands, he'll hopefully already be more invested in his current activities and find solace in swimming. I really don't want kids around me growing up to become unsocial…

We got rid of cable tv years ago and tv watching dropped off sharply after that. These days we barely turn it on, although the kids play XBox here and there. The iPads they have are a nuisance, though. We excised the worst demon, but Youtube has some pretty vapid crap, too. It's a process. I don't want to entirely cut them off because they do learn from it here and there. It's a tool, not a drug.

but they are clearly designed to be a drug.. under the guise of a tool:

https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-Produc...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-...

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#235

Post by flomble »

koolba wrote: post #35
mquander wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a lot of the decade of the 90s having the best times of my life immersing myself in video games and the Internet, and looking back it seems to me like I'm the better for it. I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking to deny that to a kid who would have it.

> I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking to deny that to a kid who would have it. I'm going to assume you haven't seen the steaming piles that are today's kid's shows and apps. There's no way that crap is as mentally stimulating as content from the 90s (or before). It's optimized for addiction. And I'm not saying to cut it off entirely. I'm just saying the new stuff is universally terrible.

I'm sorry but I can't let this one slide. Yes, children have been subjected to a slew of execrable sitcoms but at least in the realm of cartoons children's there is much that is of high quality. Adventure Time, Gravity Falls and Steven Universe roundly refute "universally terrible". Even the 2000s had Avatar, Samurai Jack, early Spongebob and Fairly Odd Parents. Other than nostalgia and smugness, I can't find any justification for claiming that none of it was as "mentally stimulating" as the 90s given how equally rife with garbage the 90s were.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#236

Post by williamscales »

mcone wrote: post #142
otakucode wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, it is certainly quite a bit different. I'm not sure how material the differences are though. For what it's worth, I had access to BBS' prior to that and had already enjoyed discussing things with adults as an equal before getting a dialup account on a local university mainframe. Everything was done through a shell account, telnet and gopher and similar. I mean, I was still able to quite easily find mys…

I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part. I guess the big question here is whether or not parents can or should teach their children self-control. As a parent, should I just give my child access to everything and hope for the best? Or should I restrict access and hope they don't become bitter hermits? :)

I guess the real answer is probably somewhere in between - restrict at first and loosen restrictions as you see fit. Are there a lot of examples of how to do this effectively? It's a question I wonder about.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#237

Post by Fogest »

grzm wrote: post #222
bashinator wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno why you're being downvoted - as a kid I was an avid reader. I could not read on our long car trips to visit relatives - instant nausea.

Speculation, but I suspect the down vote is due to the first sentence "Do they not get car sick from reading books while driving?" It assumes that that everyone gets sick as they do, and doesn't give their parent the benefit of the doubt that what they commented was wholly accurate.

That's a bit ridiculous, if people are that sensitive they have different problems. I was simply asking a question about whether they get car sick or not from reading while in the car. It does not assume anything, that is exactly why I asked the question. Based on my experience that is what would happen to me, so I was curious to hear their account.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#238

Post by grzm »

Fogest wrote: post #237
grzm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculation, but I suspect the down vote is due to the first sentence "Do they not get car sick from reading books while driving?" It assumes that that everyone gets sick as they do, and doesn't give their parent the benefit of the doubt that what they commented was wholly accurate.

That's a bit ridiculous, if people are that sensitive they have different problems. I was simply asking a question about whether they get car sick or not from reading while in the car. It does not assume anything, that is exactly why I asked the question. Based on my experience that is what would happen to me, so I was curious to hear their account.

It may be ridiculous, but language use can affect how it's interpreted. And given on a forum like this the text is the only channel of information. It's communication bereft of body language and intonation, which makes it even more of a challenge. For example, do you discern a difference between the following?

> "Do they not get car sick from reading books while driving?"

> "Do they get car sick from reading books while driving?"

If so, what is it? Why would a person choose one over the other?

I hope this is coming across as useful. How communication is understood on the web is interesting to me, and understanding how to communicate effectively means also learning how we come across and how that squares with what we intend, and I fear I may not be doing a good job here. Without a response from the people who actually down voted, all we can do is try to look at how people might interpret what was written.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#239

Post by Fogest »

grzm wrote: post #238
Fogest wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit ridiculous, if people are that sensitive they have different problems. I was simply asking a question about whether they get car sick or not from reading while in the car. It does not assume anything, that is exactly why I asked the question. Based on my experience that is what would happen to me, so I was curious to hear their account.

It may be ridiculous, but language use can affect how it's interpreted. And given on a forum like this the text is the only channel of information. It's communication bereft of body language and intonation, which makes it even more of a challenge. For example, do you discern a difference between the following? > "Do they not get car sick from reading books while driving?" > "Do they get car sick from reading books wh…

In my opinion they both should have the same reaction. If someone asked me that in person or by text I see no reason why I'd be upset by that. It's a simple question and nothing else I said in the comment would suggest I was trying to be rude, so why take it that way? Why be offended when you don't need to be. Seems a bit silly to me.

Re: I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids

#240

Post by TwelveNights »

rayiner wrote: post #199
wutbrodo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect. This is just blind scientism of the worst kind. The only things you can draw this conclusion about are _the specific possible effects that have been studied_. The possibility of screens around children all day hasn't been around for very long at all, and…

> This is just blind scientism of the worst kind No, it's an inference drawn form imperfect information, which is the bedrock of policy-making and civilized life in general. Screens have been around for decades now. They have been the subject of significant study in different contexts. The average American has watched more than four hours of TV per day for more than thirty years. An entire generation was raised in fr…

Still, the topic isn't strictly on people's interactions with a screen. The biggest difference is availability. You couldn't carry your T.V. with you everywhere you go, and it can't do even close to as much as a mobile phone can.

I'll agree that there's imperfect information because of how new the technology is, and how it's difficult to study the long-term effects because of that. However, erring on the side of caution while doing something as non-deterministic as raising a child because you don't know the consequences is not an incorrect course of action.

Post reply on HN