As a kid, we were limited by technology, so no limits were needed (SMB just wasn’t that replayable, and the TI/99 was even worse). Perhaps the solution to creativity here is to simply give your kids older computers to play with.
I have extended family who have done this, and the difference is palpable.
That’s just how statistics work.
I'm simply concerned about the collective fear parents have of their own children's liberty.
My parents limited video game time, and I think they were right to do so. I still managed to become a (fairly skilled, I hope) software developer.
I am not totally against parents controlling their children's behavior, but I am wary of how trivial it is to take that to the extreme, without even realizing it, because of a collective fear that is promoted by those around you.
I am quite certain that measures of control over my "computer use" would have been detrimental. It's important to not throw that aside in discussions like this.
How much restriction?
What aspects of "the industry"?
What sort of experiences might they have missed? Will you ever know?
Well, I know what activities didn't get crowded out by unfettered access to a computer.
It wasn't about a monastic existence, it was just keeping things in balance.
Putting predictable enforced limits goes long way to stop that. It just works and still allows them game time. People tend to relax those rules as kids grow and problems disappear.
I knew multiple people who had trouble later in school because of inability to not play till morning before major test. You really want your child to be able to stop game after a while of playing.
They get used to stop playing, they are forced not to treat game as number one priority in life and because they find other things to do with time. And maybe also because they cease to feel entitled to tablet all the time.
It prevents them into getting into habit. And makes it harder to join social groups where your game score is you social standing (thus feeding addiction via social pressure).
Basically, they're forced to learn to never immerse themselves in any activity. I'm not sure it's a good thing to ask for.
At least the clear and predictable rules you describe help some. The kid will know in advance not to immerse themselves, because there isn't enough time. Beats the hell getting into an activity, and then being suddenly dragged out of it.
No, inability to play computer game whole day every day at age of seven will not break your ability to immerse into activity.
Being immersed so much that you don't control yourself and act badly is issue parents need to deal with. If they don't, the older the kid grows the more consequences it has on his or her life. So, yes, it is a good thing.
Even if we are assuming there will be no long term consequences, if the toy causes enough bullshit for the rest familly, parents are entitled to limit it for their own or siblings sake.
That's what we're talking about doing to kids. Kids may not be as smart as adults, but they have feelings and imagination just as much, if not even more than us. Hell, I remember how I myself hated being randomly interrupted at early-teenage years.
> Being immersed so much that you don't control yourself and act badly is issue parents need to deal with.
I'd vote for dealing with it by not putting the kid in that position in the first place. It would be totally understandable of an adult to "behave badly" if the event we're describing happened to them.
> if the toy causes enough bullshit for the rest familly, parents are entitled to limit it for their own or siblings sake
Parents are entitled to everything, but it would be wise of them to realize that any bullshit caused by a toy is of their own making.
My kids get aggressive only if I walk in the room, realise they have been watching videos for far too long, and try to take it away. Kind of understandable, if you imagine from their perspective.
My wife and I foster, so we've spent time parenting a number of children and all do so much better when they have structure and control over their lives. Kids act up when they can't figure out what's going to happen next. But, if you're consistent and structured they are able to relax and get comfort out of knowing what their day will be like. Get into daily routines and do the same things (as much as possible depending on schedule) day in and day out (in the same order if you have toddlers).
Children also need control. Let them pick out their clothes. Let them decide on the sheets for their bed. Give them money to buy their school supplies. Things like that. Make sure they know that you're there to answer questions, but let them succeed ... and fail. But be there.
Was it restrictive? Incredibly so. But maybe I wouldn't be doing what I do today if it was any different - if my computer access was unlimited and "common" - because it was so restricted I spent an inordinate amount of time preparing for each use which obviously had effects on my entire career later on.
My parents didn't really support my computer endeavors (which distracted from my academics), but on the laptops and PCs I scrounged my computer time was unlimited. Again, not without a great gnashing of teeth and frequent complaints from my parents, but kids will find a way... I recall hours and hours programming graphing calculators (and teachers seizing my calculator for programming in classes not related to math [and even some related])
I learned by spending inordinate amounts of time trying, throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, from Assembly to Game Maker-like programs to C via SDCC for my little graphing calculator. There was little preparation and very few books, and just insane amounts of time on computers.
I had "imposter syndrome" while I was learning, so I always spent time trying to do things "how the professionals" did. I remember trying TDD while I was still in early high school and worshipping XML with nicely made schemas and codegen for my RPC libraries because I thought that's what "real programmers" did. All the time spent doing things like that shaped my ability to pick and choose what "works" and what doesn't in so many other applications today
And as a result today I'm a professional developer who never went to college.
But maybe I wouldn't be doing what I do today if it was any different - if my computer access wasn't unlimited and "common" - because it was so unrestricted I spent an inordinate amount of time programming, which obviously had effects on my entire career later on ;)
Be wary of survivor bias. Not everyone is like you, and not every similar situation is the same.
I grew from my free experience with computers, and I hope every child can have that opportunity.
It makes the most sense to me to expand time to use in adolescence, and what can be used in teenage years.
For the life of me I can't figure out how these apps make money. They're like flotsam in the Google App store, so they're making money somehow. For all I know they turn on the microphone and send the data to a rogue organization.
This is very different to when I grew up. I had to write my games in Basic (I got them in the back of a catalog!) and I learned how to modify them. I plan on giving her free use of any of my Raspberry Pis, Arduinos, and if she shows interest in those big, expensive RGB LED matrices, I'll buy those for her. She can go nuts with those!
Keep in mind that this isn't just about how good parents can misuse technology in raising their kids. I think people tend to think of "parents" as a group as something different from the individual parents they've actually encountered. A lot of parents are actually pretty terrible, and when we talk about "giving parents tools" we need to keep in mind that we're also empowering those parents.
So while the tendency might be to imagine some wholesome mom who just wants to know her kid isn't playing Murder-Fuck 2018, we should also remember the homophobic dad worried about his son playing a My Little Pony game.
So your comment seems to be based on an impossible premise.
Still possible outside the home or at school. Borrowing a device from the next door neighbor who could care less about parental controls is one way for kids who are intent on playing a game their peers are raving about.
Then there is the option of using an older (teenage) sibling's device for the same purpose if left lying around in the house.
B. How would that be an argument against my main point, that new technology is giving parents too much control over their kids' lives?
Imagine a similar parental control solution employed on an Android tablet, or a Windows PC. Your kid will learn how to sideload games from friends at school. Where there's a will, there's a way.
This episode explores some of the risks that monitoring and censoring children can have on their development and also the effect it can have on the parents themselves.
The moral sounds to me more like: if you keep your innocent child locked away from the world, you might just create a cure for blindness.
There are actually people who consider a story like Minority Report not as a cautionary tale but rather as a challenge along the lines of "They just did it wrong in fiction, we can do it better in reality!".
Just like I'm pretty sure there are quite a few parents out there who would watch that BM episode and go "I'd totally put such an implant into my child but I'd do xyz different!".