It's not too late for slow parenting | Hacker News Reader

It's not too late for slow parenting

leonsbox.com

73 pointsLeonidBugaev49 comments

I am in unique position as a parent. We have a 26 year old, 8 year old and 3 year old. We never tried to stop having kids, but all of the sudden we found ourselves pregnant when the oldest was 18. Then, a complete surprise when the last one came along.

When the 26 year old was born I was hyperfocused on getting her involved in everything. We signed her up for tons of stuff, exposed her to many things and we were continually going. I coached her in soccer and basketball, my wife taught her things like sewing and home maintenance. She's now an RN and working in a hospital.

Sounds good, right?

In our rush to expose her to so much, we overlooked the simple premise that she should do what interests her. She didn't graduate from college until 25 due to her inability to stick with things. I am so proud of her since she is the most caring person I know, but part of me knows we failed her by forcing her into so many different activities through her childhood. She felt she could try something and quit, try something else, quit. Rinse. Repeat.

Our youngest 2 kids aren't forced to do things they don't want to do. We ask them if there is interest and if there is we sign them up. If not, we don't. We've eliminated TV and limit kindle screen time and spend so much more time with them than we did the oldest. Honestly, I don't know if there are differences yet, but I do know the younger kids seem to find more things to do on their own.

Part of me thinks it might depend on the kid, but I am convinced parents forcing their children into so many activities hinders them in the long run.

I also suffer from an inability to stick with things, but that has nothing to do with being overexposed. We were poor, so I did very few activities. It's entirely possible it's nothing to do with you, but just her personality.

It's hard to know what the right thing to do, but young kids have an immense advantage that they'll quickly lose: the ability to learn really fast.

A couple of examples:

If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

A child can easily become fluent in two languages if they're immersed from a young age. Learning a second language once you're past 20 is hard.

It would be shame to waste potential.

I think the key is critically examining the modern claim that doing anything less than 3 activities and 2 foreign languages is "wasted potential". Maybe to spend a childhood so focused on pursuit and less on the journey is the waste?

Studying language is a pursuit. Learning a Language is a journey!

My little daughter does not study Spanish or Japanese, but she keeps learning interesting bits of these, just because it's fun to know. She'll have easier time studying should she decide to.

You make some valid points but there is only so many things you can do with a kid. How do you know they will become the next Pele? Sure you can send them to soccer at age 3 but then what if they could become the next Frank Sinatra ? Oh, fine lets get them enrolled in music. See the pattern ? By the time they have 5-6 activities that they are forced into, you don't necessarily know what they actually want and perhaps they don't want any of it. At what point do you stop ? That is the dilemma of fast parenting.

We enrolled my daughter in pee-wee soccer, probably more for something-to-do-on-weekends than anything. She'd spend the whole game picking flowers. I still teared up when she got her participant badge at the end.

You know what, this is a-ok. Everyone got what they wanted.

> If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

And if your child hates soccer? Their ability will only really matter if they want to turn it into a career.

> A child can easily become fluent in two languages if they're immersed from a young age.

Which, if not used, is lost to the years. My mother could speak Serbian when she was young, because she was exposed to it. She can't anymore; hasn't been able to for years. I learned German when I was young, but don't recall a single thing now. Again, unless you want to live in a country where that language is prevalent, the long term value is rather low.

> It would be shame to waste potential.

IMO, it would be a greater shame to shape the child in your image for them, instead of into the person they want to become.

In my experience, social skills, a good sense of self, and a broad educational background have served me better in adulthood than my years spent swimming ever did. If anything, my parents focus on me being a swimmer (which provided a social venue for them) held me back from developing more skills I could have used once I became an adult.

Learning a second language once you're past 20 is hard.

I don't buy this, at least in terms of kids "learn faster".

Adults have the benefit of both motivation and 20 (or more) years of communication experience, same as how a senior programmer with 20 years under their belt wouldn't find it hard to add another ML-dialect to their tool-belt vs a high-school grad who is learning their first functional language. If anything is "hard" about learning a language as an adult it's the time and priority shift required for immersion.

Now soccer, yea I'll give you that one. Or Piano, or whatever other skill where the compound benefit of repeated fine-motor skill practice often pays off.

Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition#Ag...

Researchers fight over the age of the transition (roughly 12) and how sharp it is (~3 years), but the effect is undeniably large.

>Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners?

Yes, I am disputing it. So?

Sorry, but I don't like the "research spoken, everybody shut up" tone.

Especially since research is not that conclusive at all. From the very lemma you've posted: "This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning."

Or, from another lemma:

B. Harley (1986)[24] compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning.

Also showing different strengths in different areas of learning between kids and adults:

They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al., 2004).

Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data.

Likewise for cherry picking studies out of a large body of literature.

> This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency.

Huh? This doesn't make the research any less conclusive, or support the GP's point. It's like saying the existence of players like Muggsy Bogues makes the thesis "height is extremely important for profession baseketball" less conclusive.

>Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data.

Data are next to useless without proper interpretation of what they mean.

And even before that, we must assume that the data are correctly collected and relevant.

And something like 80% of research papers have been found in meta-studies to be non reproducible, to the extend that scientists speak of a "reproducibility crisis".

So, unless we're talking about hard core sciences, like physics and the like, where things are testable with actual experimental apparatus and hard numbers (and even there, I wouldn't go into speculative stuff like String theory), I'd take any society/psychology/physiology related study with lots of grains of salt.

Up until the 80s it was "scientific fact" that being gay was a abnormal mental condition -- supported by scientific papers and literature.

Or take the dietary (the official scientific dietary advice) over various decades, and how it made a u-turn regarding fat, etc.

Computer Scientists that are driven to science should not take into much account pseudo-sciences and half-sciences which much of cognitive studies, psychology, sociology etc are.

That kids can learn languages quickly with not much more than consistent exposure during their critical periods is pretty clear.

That adults can learn languages more quickly is a different question than that of critical periods.

Adults don't have that critical period to lean on, but there are efficient ways to learn languages for people who have long been outside of that critical period that can allow adults, with their own cognitive strengths, to quickly master a language to a given level of fluency at a quicker pace than children.

There are entire online communities of polyglots that regularly practice these techniques and many of them didn't learn their first second language until well into adulthood.

> If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

Why would they need to catch up to anyone? I'd rather have my child love the game or hobby than cram every waking moment into some activity. The ability to hear yourself think and actively listen to others is more important imho. There is so much noise in US culture telling kids who they should measure up to. As a parent I feel I need to be the counter balance to those messages.

There are also plenty of examples of professional sports players who started in their teens. "Google <sports league> late start."

>Why would they need to catch up to anyone?

Sometimes a game isn't fun when you're matched with and against people far above your skill level. You feel like you bring the whole team down, and you feel like you cannot win no matter how much training and effort you put in.

be it playing soccer in high school or videogames like overwatch...

There aren't other teams?

I always felt bad for the guy whose picked last. (Not saying it was me, I'm just saying never let them see you cry.)

Anyway, the flip side is someone whose always team captain, runs circles around everyone, and goes on to uni to find out they're just okay when they're competing against 10X more people.

There's activities you can become pro later in life and other you can't. For instance for a pro musician, I remember piano can be started at 7 or 8, violin for instance is already late at 5.

Of course not every kid wants or needs to be a pro violin player. But if you don't make them give it a serious try in the first place , you'll never know if they'd want to be one or not.

>If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

Oh, the humanity. They would then grow on to be adults who can't play soccer well, and that's like a career suicide. /s

Young kids also have another immense advantage that they'll quickly lose: being kids. Burdening with tons of BS activities and responsibilities will steal time from their childhood and playing, and wont even let them discover the activities and things they do like for themselves.

> If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

I went to a school that had two hours of compulsory sport five days a week.

The end result of this was that it taught me to loathe and avoid sport, exercise and most forms of competition, which has resulted in health and social issues I've been having to cope with for the rest of my life.

You beeing lazy had nothing to do with it, it was all the daily 2 hours of sports fault...

I recently listened to a Freakonomics podcast called "how to become great at anything". They actually contradict what you are saying. With the right training you can become really good, of course natural talent adds an edge... They took some middle aged psychologist who dreamed about signing liked Adel, she was horrible! The she got a teacher that gave her singing lessons. After one year she was singing like Adel. She released singles that gained some traction as well. The important point was how you learn. Good teachers and techniques and not only 10,000 hours.

My wife and I argue over this all the time. She wants the kids to enroll in soccer, swimming and what not, all at the ripe age of 2+. I have been like "whats the hurry. Let them grow up naturally and we can always do those things". I guess it is a difficult topic but there is never really a right answer.

I put swimming lessons in a different category than other activities, because being able to swim can save you from drowning. (Whether 2 is the right age for your kid, I don't know. But I'd like to see all kids get them at some point. I got them in elementary school, during the school day, and I think that was a fantastic use of tax dollars and school time.)

My wife and I were not big activity pushers. Besides the swimming lessons that I insisted on for safety reasons, our kid did some gymnastics, and some music lessons. Didn't really like either, and we let her stop doing both.

I agree. Swimming is definitely a must for me too. It is just that I wasn't sure if we need to start that early.

In the Netherlands it's almost mandatory, and almost every parent takes their children to swimming lessons. I started learning when I was perhaps 3 or 4 years old.

It's not only good for the kid, it's fun too. I fondly remember the Saturday mornings of my early childhood as the best time of the week, because I got to spend my morning swimming in the pool. By the time I was eight or nine years old I was a proficient swimmer and the visits to the pool stopped :/

It actually helps quite a lot earlier just from an activity point of view. Plus it opens a lot of possible activities.

Team sports is actually pretty good young. They get used to some structure and get to be with other children they normally don't play with. Winning and losing at that age isn't quite the problem it becomes if they start later[1] in life experiencing those concepts.

Plus, you might find some problems with certain skills that could lead to earlier treatment when the child is still developing.

1) and for the love of $DIETY do not let it bother you

My wife is the same way, and so the agreement we have is only a single activity/class/camp at a time. You can play soccer in spring, but not baseball, for example. The child gets to pick which activity they choose. For our younger child the conversations are simpler "would you like to take an art class or a dancing class" but still let the kid pick.

Moreover what your full-grown kid would do at school, if you already taught him reading, counting, talking in foreign languages, practicing yoga and kung fu and playing the violin?

My uni physics professor had similar fears about his child, so he didn't teach him as much as he could have. I'm curious to hear from other parents on HN about this. It seems like a valid concern. At the same time, I didn't enjoy the traditional school system at all, and I'm glad that there are alternative schools where a child can learn at the speed he wants, whether fast or slow.

http://www.etreetdevenir.com/EED.en.html#Accueil

Hence why many home school.

I have two children and I am now a grandparent. I have to agree that there is no hurry. Too often parents get caught up in comparing their children to the "Norm". Truth is that they all have their own schedule, and they are all different. In my opinion, you and your children will lead a much happier, more well adjusted life, if you let your kids set their own pace. Enjoy every moment and step along the way, don't try to make it go faster, childhood is very fleeting.

I have always viewed my role as a parent as setting the boundaries of behavior, and providing a nourishing environment, within which the child could grow and develop on their own, slow or fast, with subtle guidance by me.

I grew in a rural setting, my dad always likened our upbringing to driving down an old country road. He would say, "I just tried to keep you out of the bar ditch".

Exactly this. Teach them so that they can become a productive, self-sufficient individual. Let them make (many) mistakes that won't ruin their life (heroin, prego at 14, etc.) Encourage them to try new things and they'll find their own passions. Hold them accountable to be the best version of themselves. Teach them empathy and the power of perspective and the rest will be okay.

I've always felt that 4 hours of a nose in a book every day is just as bad as 4 hours of TV/electronics every day is just as bad as 4 hours of sports/clubs/music every day. Kids need down time, time to explore, interactions with other, time to imagine. Less is more.

Just became a parent a month ago, and yeah, I am struggling to balance what my aspirations are for my daughter with what will would give her the best childhood she could have. Not and easy line to walk.

My daughter is about to turn 1 and I agree there is a ton of pressure to make sure your kid has a good start.

But try to just let your child be a child. There's a decent bit of psychology research out there now that everyone must experience all stages of growth. Stages like Baby, Toddler, Terrible 2s and 3s, Rebellious teen, unconstrained 20-something, etc. There are countless examples of people who were forced to skip some stages (often through external circumstances) who then seem to regress for a bit to "catch up" on the stages of growth they missed.

I'm afraid that this push to make sure your child is "advanced" will only cause a ton of pain and learning further down the road that didn't have to happen (also, if you want a solid, stable job forever, psychiatry and psychology are looking like good fields).

Our plan is to let our daughter simply be herself. Encourage when she's trying to learn. Help when she needs help, but don't push her to do anything she doesn't want to do. We've got ~20 years to help them become adults. They'll get there, there's no need to rush.

Having just hit the one-year mark myself: default to happiness. Children don't need to be pushed to grow and learn. They do it readily all on their own. What's important is guiding them, and to not push them too hard, lest they learn to hate learning. You'll see it. They are not black holes. They provide plenty of feedback.

Congratulations. As a parent of 2 toddlers, here is what I suggest:

Don't think too much. Spend as much time as possible with your kid. Give them a hug, make them laugh, always be around them if possible. Rest is all details that can always be worked out. Don't try to join the rat race of doing too many things.

Don't plan too much. Kids will spoil it anyway. Trust me. Been there and still doing it. So enjoy the journey.

Don't focus too much on "what are my aspirations for my kid". Instead, let them be. You know what kids really want and look up to ? Their parents/caregivers who are around them to listen to them and play with them. That is all they care about. Yes, activities are important but only a side effect.

Put educational and physical things in the child's environment. They are going to absorb information from their environment anyway, so you might as well make what they will absorb useful.

The problem with the lazy parenting that others in this thread advocate is that when everybody does it, you end up with a society that is obsessed with trivial entertainment, retarding scientific advancement; and you will live a shorter life and have less time with your kid as a result.

As a current parent the problem with this is that you'd need to get every other parent to agree with it for it to work well, especially in sports.

Let me give an example. At 4/5 kids can start playing baseball, mine started at 5. He played during spring and summer for two years. Sessions were 10 weeks, with 1 practice and 1 game, and we played catch some at home. He really enjoyed it.

But now, by age 8, he has a decision to make (and I do to as a parent). He can stay with "Rec level" which is just kids having fun (as slow parenting would imply). Or, he can join the "intermediate team". What does that entail? 4 practices per week plus 1 game, and significant travel to weekend tournaments. The team website also specifies the only times of year you can take vacation. If he doesn't join this team, he is at age 8 effectively giving up any chance of playing baseball in high school. If he does play on the team however, he's giving up on other activities, and we give up our freedom to not have vacation schedules dictated to us.

So, I guess if every other parent in the world agreed not to push kids like this it would work, for now it can leave kids behind.

EDIT made paragraphs

Learning how to be slow in our extremely fast lives, is probably one of the important skill you can develop in you and your kids.

That's a great point. Thanks for articulating that. This is a contrast I have been seeing with my step daughter but I had not been able to put my finger on it.

My child did start speaking 2 languages (French and English) since she is 3 (she is now 6). She is in an environment where she is motivated to move forward and learn (a good school). But I am very careful to monitor her happiness and want to make sure she enjoy learning for herself...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com