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

231–238 of 238 posts

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

#231

Post by nv-vn »

leetcrew wrote: post #199
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…

I'm in my twenties now but I had a pretty similar experience as a teen. it wasn't until I was in college easily crushing my CS courses that my parents stopped criticizing the amount of time I spent on the computer. if they keep giving you shit, you could always try showing them entry level software engineer salaries on glassdoor.

I already have one foot out the door as I'll be heading for college soon, but I think they have grown to better understand my relationship with technology. When I placed in a school science fair with a computer project that I had stayed up working on for hours for a few weeks I gained some more trust/freedom in my computer use. I think that was a pivotal moment in my learning in some ways, just like how your CS course was.

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

#232

Post by ravroid »

munificent wrote: post #100
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 don't think it makes sense to lump all of uses of technology into a single conceptual bucket any more than it's useful to say, "Kids will use things that are made of plastic when they grow up so we shouldn't restrict access to plastic things." Watching unboxing videos on YouTube, posting selfies on Instagram (and getting judged by them), programming a videogame, compulsively clicking notifications and skimming soci…

I absolutely agree with this. I think that this "all screen time is unproductive" mindset can actually deny some kids the opportunity to develop technical skills and interests that could significantly benefit them later on.

I'll use myself as an example:

I grew up with parents who restricted my time spent on video games and internet use (I just spent more time playing video games at friends' houses). They did however allow me to have computers in my room that weren't connected to the internet.

I spent a lot of my early teens tinkering with my computers and learning to code. When I was around 15, I finally saved up enough money from my summer jobs to buy an iMac (and a wifi router that I convinced my parents to let me replace theirs with). I then had unlimited internet access and continued to learn IT and programming.

A few months after graduating high school, I moved cities and applied for a dev internship at a local ad agency. I had started at a community college but dropped out to accept a full-time position. Now four years later, I've held 2 lead positions at two companies and am earning a senior-level salary.

Without a doubt, I wouldn't have had that level of opportunity if I wasn't allowed to have computers growing up. I think parents are doing their kids a potential disservice by placing all forms of 'screen time' in the same category. Restricting (leisure) internet use and video games is very understandable, but I think there is real value in allowing kids 'screen time' if they have any level of interest in technology.

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

#233

Post by jeroen »

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…

Restricting access instead of helping them build that healthy relationship just leads to them wanting to do things like go to the houses of friends to watch YouTube.

When you limit screen time to x minutes per day, that should include screen time outside the house.

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

#234

Post by cortesoft »

lr4444lr wrote: post #198
cortesoft wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you drive to the mountain to start the hike? People from 200 years ago might say, "I can't believe this person has never learned what it means to load up your horse, ride 50 miles to the mountain, climb it, and earn the view of the vista" I am not saying there isn't value in outdoor activities and climbing, but I find it interesting that we set the level of technology that we had as a kid as the 'baseline' for a…

Point taken. I'll bite the bullet and admit that there is indeed probably something lost when I have to use a modern machine to get from where I live to the experience of pristine nature I crave. Something almost tragic, as if my "normal life" is unnatural or lacking in something primally good for me, which I have to "visit". But to not have experienced it at all, like not being unplugged from technology for a long s…

Wanting to view pristine nature makes total sense, and is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. However, I think your idea of your 'normal life' being unnatural is a construct you make.

Being in a beautiful landscape isn't any more 'natural' than being somewhere boring and bland. Visiting different areas and seeing natural wonders is certainly enjoyable, and can improve your health and well being.

But that would be true even if you lived a primitive hunter gatherer lifestyle; most people aren't going to be living on a mountaintop, or living in a forest.

A big part of what makes visiting the pristine nature such a cathartic experience is that it is different from your day to day life. Novelty is a strong desire in humans. If you lived on an isolated mountaintop, you might feel that same good feeling visiting the city that you get visiting the mountaintop.

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

#235

Post by ddnb »

alasdair_ wrote: post #83
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 definitely restrict "passive" screen time - especially TV, but also youtube that just autoplays stuff - but I have less of an issue with more interactive things. An example: my six year old loves Algodoo (a physics simulator) and builds all kinds of crazy stuff in it. I have no problem with him building and creating things (not all day of course) - It's the passive viewing of content without thought ir interaction…

What are your thoughts on documentaries?

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

#237

Post by lobotryas »

e40 wrote: post #189
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #14

I was self-driven by the book's description, enabled by unobtrusive parenting and a stable home life. But I also turned out really well by several objective metrics, and many of my peers in similar circumstances didn't. As I think about how to parent, where you're supplying steady inputs into the system with many other inputs, I'm beginning to think we undervalue positive parenting contributions but overvalue its det…

I was self-driven by the book's description, enabled by unobtrusive parenting and a stable home life. But I also turned out really well by several objective metrics, and many of my peers in similar circumstances didn't. In the 60's and 70's when I grew up, free-range kids were the norm. I turned out good, but some of my peers did not. I've felt for some time that for those that do well with free-range parenting, they…

Then what are you talking about? Reading your post makes the 60s and 70s sound like a pretty kickin' time.

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

#238

Post by guy98238710 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #213
guy98238710 wrote: post #195

Ironically, the book, including the cheesy title, fits in a range of parenting books telling parents how to arrange their children's lives, making children an object rather than the subject once again. Psychologists (and related specialists) could use more humbleness given the sad state of the science of psychology. Parenting advice, especially one argued in such biased way, is inevitably crude. Parenting is more nua…

It is literally the job of parents to arrange their childrens' lives. For example parents have to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, entertainment, and emotional support to children. They also have to create a schedule to fit all that into each day, plus leave sufficient time for sleeping (kids need a lot of sleep). The question is, how best to do all that? You're right that parenting is difficu…

The question to ask is whether the book is just shaping your understanding of what the child tells you or whether you are now listening more to the book than to the child. The books I have seen all argue for their preferred theory of what's good for children. Preferences of children (whether expressed eloquently or through tantrums or just inferred by the parent) are never considered. This book seems to be no exception.
Post reply on HN