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

A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 516 posts

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#281

Post by heurist »

nulldata wrote: post #236
baybal2 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A repost from half year ago: I lived in Russia during the time when slot machines were literally standing in the open on the streets, and yes, mentally infirm people were wasting themselves on them. Normal people did not. It requires one to completely lack logic reasoning to not to understand that the the purpose of a slot machine is to waste his or her time and money. The same way, it requires a particular lack of b…

The problem is that it's not the "clickfarming" apps that are the real danger for the majority of people, I'd argue it's the endless algorithmically tailored content and social media streams most of us consume. The ones that fill our every - otherwise - idle moment with something to distract us with.

I spend at least as much time on HN as Facebook these days. (My relationship with HN is fine but my relationship with my phone is not as healthy as I feel it should be.) I think the problem is related to the fleeting mental rewards of surprising information, not any particular application. Perhaps the product of all available applications.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#282

Post by usrusr »

kurthr wrote: post #197
Benjammer wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't stop there... I'd argue a prime-of-their-life 34 year old _data scientist_ doesn't stand a change _against their own algorithms_ if they immerse themselves. It's addiction. We need to stop acting like it is "weak-minded" people (children is a dog-whistle for this) who are susceptible to tech addiction. The idea of "standing a chance" is literally like saying you can consciously control your dopamine receptors t…

Bingo (anecdata)... a few years ago I spent the last 15min of a flight into SFO talking to a lady (who had been playing Bejeweled for 4 hours straight) about using touchscreens so long (it's my job). She mentioned how shaky she gets when she has to stop playing... I asked what she did... a game designer at Zynga.

More anecdata: we're all here, right?

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#283

Post by donohoe »

I'm reminded of this book: "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" by Nir Eyal (BTW I'm not endorsing this book).

4.7 out of 5 stars on Amazon after 1,100 reviews.

From the description:

"... by explaining the Hook Model—a four-step process embedded into the products of many successful companies to subtly encourage customer behavior. Through consecutive “hook cycles,” these products reach their ultimate goal of bringing users back again and again without depending on costly advertising or aggressive messaging."

Link: https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Build-Habit-Forming-Products/d...

We build 'addictive' products by design. Our children should be protected. I'm in the process of saying 'No' to my kids requests for phones and access to online services.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#284

Post by pavel_lishin »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #208

The same people that buy organic peas also have a paranoia about screens. How unsurprising. The article doesn't say there has been any peer-reviewed research to show a little screen time is harmful. It just says, oh, check it out, here is a grab bag of assholes, we picked out of a population of like 1 Million engineers, and THEY DONT LET THEIR KIDS USE SCREENS. Well guess what. I was a video game engineer for 10 year…

> The article doesn't say there has been any peer-reviewed research to show a little screen time is harmful.

This is a valid complaint about the article, but not a good reason to declare that screens are perfectly healthy.

And thank you for your anecdotal data; we let our kid watch some screen time too, and anecdotally have noticed some negative correlations - after watching more than an hour of TV, she gets more cranky, less patient, a lot more demanding and in general behaves worse.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#285

Post by jmartrican »

I have been letting my kid use their ipad, iphone, and laptop since they were 2. 10 years later have not had any issues. I have no rules about when the kid can use their screens. Strong believer in the self-driven approach to parenting, see link below. When there are kids around, my kid puts the devices down and gets to playing with the other kids (that also have no rules around devices) and they all interact pretty normal. I also feel, that restricting the devices might actually lead to mental fixation on them and could back-fire.

Its pretty interesting because when my kid was young, my concern was not too much exposure but not enough.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0797ZV1RJ/ref=oh_aui_d_de...

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#286

Post by quabity »

“’Cause the technology is just gonna get better and better and it’s gonna get easier and easier and more and more convenient and more and more pleasurable to sit alone with images on a screen given to us by people who do not love us but want our money. And that’s fine in low doses but if it’s the basic main staple of your diet you’re gonna die. In a meaningful way, you're going to die.” –David Foster Wallace

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#287

Post by jbattle »

rchaud wrote: post #212
djsumdog wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My generation grew up with TV shows like The Transformers that got kids to beg their parents for toys. McDonalds has marketed to children for the better part of a century (and it has followed many people into adulthood). The medium has changed, but the practices are the same as Edward Bernays and Anna Freud cooked up so many decades ago (Sigmund was never happy with the way his family members used his psychoanalysis…

> My generation grew up with TV shows like The Transformers that got kids to beg their parents for toys. But the addiction component wasn't built-in the way it is now. Everyone remembers "Saturday morning cartoons with cereal" because there was a set time and place for that event. After the episode ended, it didn't auto-play the next episode, or recommend 5 highly similar shows based on your "viewing history". Consid…

I dunno, I remember losing HOURS sitting in front of a TV. Watching whatever. Whatever they wanted to show me, I'd watch it. Commercials every X minutes.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#288

Post by dxhdr »

astrodust wrote: post #270
dxhdr wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older games like Diablo were not engineered to maximize Day 1 / 7 / 28 retention rates. All mobile games today optimize for those metrics.

That didn't stop people from playing it 28 days straight.

Oh yeah, Diablo was certainly engrossing. However I think there's a distinction between creating a fun game that happens to be addictive, versus architecting a game to be as exploitative as possible.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#289

Post by marcosdumay »

djsumdog wrote: post #176
ravenstine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two problems with how we view addiction: - Everything has a potential of being addictive, but we focus so much on drugs since they have some especially addicting properties that aren't present in other habits. - We're stuck with Enlightenment age thinking such as "tabula rasa" and we attribute too much human behavior to free will, an ill-defined term that nobody whom I ask can provide a comprehensive answer to.

My generation grew up with TV shows like The Transformers that got kids to beg their parents for toys. McDonalds has marketed to children for the better part of a century (and it has followed many people into adulthood). The medium has changed, but the practices are the same as Edward Bernays and Anna Freud cooked up so many decades ago (Sigmund was never happy with the way his family members used his psychoanalysis…

A decade ago, we didn't have to fight an always engaged computer acting on a personal level, trying to convince us to not let it go and do something else.

It's a difference only of efficiency, but it is large enough to create completely different kinds of problems.

Re: A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

#290

Post by mcculley »

hhjinks wrote: post #215
ravenstine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two problems with how we view addiction: - Everything has a potential of being addictive, but we focus so much on drugs since they have some especially addicting properties that aren't present in other habits. - We're stuck with Enlightenment age thinking such as "tabula rasa" and we attribute too much human behavior to free will, an ill-defined term that nobody whom I ask can provide a comprehensive answer to.

> We're stuck with Enlightenment age thinking such as "tabula rasa" Nobody has actually believed in that for decades, and it certainly isn't present in the public consciousness.

Lots of people believe that the human mind is a blank slate and that culture defines humans more than any inherited neural architecture. I disagree with that conclusion, but it certainly is not “nobody”. One need look no further than the angry screeds in response to evolutionary psychology.
Post reply on HN