Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

It's a level-headed article. Parenting, like almost nothing else, turns normal, intelligent, educated people into nutters. A rational, evidence-based conversation about screen time, breastfeeding, pregnancy, birth, education, and diet is increasingly impossible to have, especially with millennial parents.

I just got my four year old an iPhone (with a data plan, because she realized she didn't have wifi in the car). It's great! She can text me emojis and Digital Touch messages, and Facetime me at work whenever she wants. It's fine: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/0....

View on HN

If your takeaway from your link was that "it's fine" and not "that further research is necessary"... you are going one step further than the article.

I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.

What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?

My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.

The article says: "While we agree that the well-being of children is a crucial issue and that the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation, the message that many parents will hear is that screens are inherently harmful. This is simply not supported by solid research and evidence."

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.

> you only get to raise your kids once

> If the jury is out ... err on the side of caution

> as with all things, moderation is key

It's one thing when you use hand-wavy platitudes to guide your own parenting choices. The problem is that supposedly rational organizations (WHO, government bodies) use similar hand-waving platitudes in setting official recommendations and policies.

> 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 it's not irrational for parents to suspect that there may be effects that would only show up in, e.g., longitudinal studies.

Hell, the _very statement that you're quoting_ uses the words "the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation". Parental caution (and those of institutional recommendations) in the lead-up to a more fleshed-out body of scientific literature on the topic isn't unreasonable at all.

> 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 front of the TV. If there was a major first order effect from "screen time," we'd know about it by now.

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.

>beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day //

That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

> That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

I mean, this is fuzzy-headed thinking. You can flip that around just as easily: allowing a kid to reach out to a parent as needed using her own agency can reduce the anxiety that makes children clingy. It's like training wheels: do they encourage or discourage biking without them?

On the contrary. Being able to communicate with parents at any time lets them take more calculated risks and grow more independent.

If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying.

>If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying. //

Isn't it being "terrifying" and yet you having the gumption to do it what builds your character and prepares you to take on things without having your hand held? You were relying on your self - your skills, your organisation; and not on your parents?

Agreed - discomfort and fear have value. If you can't stomach the low-stakes game of using public transport without a lifeline how will you handle anything more serious?

"And now, little Jack, it's time to learn to swim. [throws child in pool] C'mon, use your gumption! Stop drowning! And stop all that yelling. This is building character!

Oh, he's drowned. Never mind! Better luck with little Fred!"

There's a lot of variables and fine balance at play, for sure.

Riding the bus alone for the first time: IIRC I was 11, but in a small village, I'd already ride a few miles from home on my push bike.

I wouldn't expect death as the most likely outcome of a public transit ride at this sort of age.

There's no one size fits all approach to raising children.

Having a way to talk to parents in an emergency isn't having your hand held. It's like a parachute that allows you to do more dangerous things than you would do otherwise. I didn't end up actually using that cellphone because I didn't get lost, but that doesn't mean the phone was useless.

Maybe this is not the case anymore because phones are cheap but when I was a kid I felt proud that my parents trusted me with such an expensive piece of hardware. I considered it a responsibility.

In addition to other responses, I'd like to point out that it also reinforces shared values and expectations of connectivity and communication between family members.

My wife is a pediatric OT and she no longer sees children 6 and under whose parents give them an electronic device. She's on the front lines and says those kids are just... rough. Anecdotal, yes, but it's just not worth her time / money.

"Front lines"? Is this a war?

Can you expand on this? She no longer sees them because they don't need services, or because she refuses to care for them? What purpose does that serve? I'm seriously dumbfounded.

(edited to remove question about why a child needs OT)

From Wikipedia:

"Common occupational therapy interventions include helping children with disabilities to participate fully in school and social situations, helping people recovering from injury to regain skills, and providing supports for older adults experiencing physical and cognitive changes."

I'm guessing a common error is to think a child can't have movement difficulties and that OT is solely about workplace issues.

This page, http://www.wellesleyot.com/, gives a short synopsis of the types of assistance given to children by an OT; along with specific conditions that may increase the need for such help.

Ok so maybe I was thinking those things were more PT or something.

But still "I don't wanna help your kid because you bought them a phone", needs some expansion, IMO. There are valid reasons to deny care to patients that will not comply with medical advice but I just wanted to know what about a phone makes things so bad that a child is worth ignoring until they get rid of it.

Often people in these industries use terms like 'the front lines' because it is their job to deal with severely trauma effected people, and that is taxing in just about every way possible. It's tough, tough work.

What this poster's wife does is to help children who are having trouble with normal socialization. My interpretation is that she views kids with behavioral problems that have been given access to a phone before the age of 6 as too far gone. To be honest, anyone's time is limited and if the view of this Dr is that dealing with these children will take more time and not produce great results, it probably makes sense to focus on other patients, as there are always and will always be more patients demanding of more time than there are doctors x hours in the day.

"War is apt" because that's precisely what a child will think when you take their screen away.

"This means war!"

Younger: <hissy fit ensues>

Older: <being intentionally annoying until they get the screen back>

Older than that: <being sneaky>

...no longer sees children 6 and under whose parents give them an electronic device.

All the schools in my area have the same policy. Forget those kids!

Anyone whose jaw is on the floor in horror at this post, be advised that it's not some hyper-connected techie outlier: this is absolutely the norm now.

My wife teaches in a mixed lowish-to-upper-middle school district in (what I'm sure many of you will consider to be) backward-ass Kansas City. Most of the kids have a personal smartphone by 2nd or 3rd grade. All except a tiny minority with stricter parents have them by 5th or so—we're talking 1-2 a class without a personal smartphone, tops. The school abandoned efforts to keep phones out years ago, and I've been told that's how most are now. Taking a phone being used in class will just earn you a pissed-off self-righteous parent who may or may not turn out to be a nutter who tries to get you fired, so no-one even tries, and besides, school policies on phone use are weak—they've just surrendered, because almost no parents would back them up on any kind of anti-phone policy with teeth, and many would actively fight it. My wife's many times had to scold kids for texting their friggin' parents while lessons are going on.

This is absolute insanity. 4 years old with a data plan? Can Facetime you at work any time? Where the fuck do you work?? Why does your 4 year old need an internet connected device of her own??

Seems pretty great to me. She watches Wild Kratz and corrects me when I say that spiders are insects. She Facetimes me in the car on the way home from school, she Facetimes her grandparents who live 3,000 miles away. She's gotten really good at the Paw Patrol iPhone game. She just figured out how to print stuff to color on.

I don't get the screen-time hate in this thread at all. I don't know about you, but I was a nerd who was glued to an NES since age 5, and a computer since age 8. I turned out great (married, kid, good job). I highly doubt most of us on HN were well-socialized little kids who spent all their time playing outside.

> I turned out great (married, kid, good job).

A lot of people would draw a distinction with your definition of "great". Great people are moral, intelligent and aware. Lots of worthless people are married, have kids, and make a lot of money.

Did this comment really need writing?

It made me chuckle in a good way, so yes, a bit of sunshine in my day was totally worth it !

Your NES wasn't monitoring your every action to try to figure out how to make itself even more addictive to you. And both it and your computer eventually got boring, and made you seek out something else to do.

Phones are categorically different from the technology we were "glued" to in our 8-bit youth. People aren't hating on generic screen time here, they're hating on always-on fully-connected devices loaded with software that is continually adapting to try and increase your engagement time with them.

Four is a bit early to be going to work

That's parenting advice I can get behind.

> I just got my four year old an iPhone

Do you find that she's able to limit herself? My kid loves screens, and is the same age as yours, but having tried to leave him with a tablet I've decided it's too dangerous. He can literally sit with it all his waking hours, so no more tablet for him.

Screen time ate up a lot of my childhood. Learned a lot, too, but I only got a computer as a teenager.

Ah, yes, the old trope of trashing the younger generation. A time-honored tradition passed from generation to generation to perpetrate on the next unsuspecting new generation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com