My daughter was a creative genius, and then we bought her an iPhone
medium.com
medium.com
> My daughter doesn’t return home from school until 6:30 pm and still has to eat, bathe, and get ready for bed.
Perhaps it is not just the iPhone, but school taking up 100% of her time, energy, and attention that is preventing her from pursuing creative interests? As a homeschooling parent whose kids have been in school at times, I see this first hand. School is exhausting. Between rising unnaturally early (which leaves kids tired), rushing and bustling kids on their daily commute, most of the daylight hours blocked for school then homework when you get home not to mention whatever homework the teachers decide to assign to parents, and did I mention the kids are exhausted by the end of the day due to early wake-up?
Compulsory daily full-time school for children may be good for some things but it would take a lot to convince me that it increases their creativity. When my kids home school they will spend a lot of time playing roblox or whatever, but then they'll spend hours playing outdoors, decide to do a cooking project that takes all morning–currently one of mine is getting into "bushcraft" and he'll watch hours of videos about making fires, carving etc. before putting the tips it into practice (safely) during times outdoors, where he spends hours and hours. Then he'll come back, play roblox for an hour, then help clean up and put the younger kids to bed.
I am concerned about over-use/addictive nature of computers & phones, but I think it's myopic to see your otherwise creative child tired and craving mental distraction and say "aha the phone is the problem." Step back and look at the whole picture.
Edit: I must admit I commented after reading only half the article (shame on me). It does in fact seem like her daughter has a phone-use problem. What I say above remains true, however.
She got told no because she didn't have recent work experience. Childcare simply doesn't count unless you are getting paid to watch other people's children.
I'll also add that it isn't just a couple hours after school: It is holidays that parents don't get off work. It is summers without school. It is 6-8 hours after school while parents work second shift. It, in general, doesn't matter if your child is mature enough to stay home during the summer or late into the evening, the child care isn't for them.
* For starters, school doesn't last until 6:30pm unless you let it. Extracurriculars are extra. If you need afternoon child care (and most of us do), there may be less directed, more creative options available.
* Schools can make changes, and you can encourage your teacher / school / district to do so. Less homework (an idea which has some science behind it iiuc) at least. Maybe a later start time (although this runs into tension with parents' schedules).
Also, middle school that is from morning till 18:30 is definitely not the norm here. There is also this part where every single flaw of every educational system is assumed to be unchangeable and universal.
So it is not even like the argument would made sense.
I agree that everyone should have access to better child-rearing opportunities than are offered by school, especially public school in North America. I'd love to see homework eliminated, more time in school devoted to play, more tracking & opportunities for everyone to develop their strengths (be they calculus or auto mechanics), and the elimination of compulsory secondary schooling (let the kids come who want to come & make it rewarding enough that they do, rather than threatening to jail their parents to bring them to heel).
I am ignoring the aspects of your comment directed towards me personally.
This is exactly the type of situation ttul seems unaware of. The "only rich white people homeschool" trope is a myth from people who are unfamiliar with the much more complex reality of the situation.
The issue is the daughter doesn't have time to be creative. I program, edit videos, etc., but all of that I have to save for the weekends. The daughter probably doesn't have the energy to be creative and just uses their phone during some downtime.
With my generation we are not always on our phones like many would believe. Pre-covid we would gather and talk after school, during lunch, in class. If I went with my friends to lunch it is acceptable to check your phone but we would never find it acceptable to be on your phone the whole time.
The issue is probably not the daughter, but the workload.
I'm 40.
This gives me hope for our species. I lost a very good, old friend several years ago because he was constantly on his phone. Several of us were home for Thanksgiving, which is a real rarity since we live all over the United States. We were all out to dinner and he just could not get off the phone, when I finally said, "Do you think its socially unacceptable to constantly be on your phone when we're all here together??"
He got extremely defensive, and very nasty. We haven't spoken since.
I can't tell you how great it is for me to see younger people realize how important it is to be in-the-moment with the people around you.
Our obsession with packing children’s lives with empty calorie activities to “prepare the for the real world” is destructive - to their potential, their mental health, and our ability to level up as a species.
I will point out though that, if one is inclined to argue that school should prepare children for adult life, it sounds like this system is a pretty good mimic of the working life any given child is likely to have after they eventually leave school. Just replace homework with non-work obligations (or a second job).
As an aside, if school was preparation for adult life then it really should teach you to drive, cook, and an understanding of the law. There are few things that school teaches that end up being more important than those for adults.
I don't know about now, but when I was in school (in the US), we were taught all those things and more (a bit of carpentry, metal work, engine repair, simple accounting, etc) YMMV.
With the alternative frequently being homelessness. It's a lucky few (relatively speaking) who can freely switch jobs and pursue passions.
Most people work simply so they can continue to have a home, food, water, heat...
While I was not a good student in high school, and basically saw it as “doing time”, I was forced to get my act together academically when I became severely chronically ill my freshman year at university. My work ethic changed completely because not being a full time student meant no insurance. Also, if I did not have a job in the future with good benefits, it literally meant death (I require a blood product to survive). So, engineering school it was. But now I don’t live in the USA so this is less of a problem. It is nice not to have to worry constantly about healthcare and having to work a job just for the benefits—-as in to actually be free.
They can learn to get up early and commute when they have to do so. I don't think making kids spend 10 years waking up early is necessary to prepare them for getting up early as an adult.
Analogy: they may have to go without food at some point their life, that doesn't mean we have to starve them now so they're prepared. They can learn to do it when they need to do it.
More generally, i don't think we should make kids lives suck to prepare them for the fact that the rest of their life is also going to suck. That's not the way to make happy people who appropriately prioritize work/life balance.
Everyone is different though. Some people have lower stress jobs where they work for a single company and have plenty of time to learn new stuff on the job (or never really need to acquire new skills). But I work in consulting, so acquiring new skills while maximizing my billable hours is part of the game.
I'm also not the owner or anything of the sort; I'm a mid-level IC with no direct reports.
The second job is closer to homework, so long as you are doing it most nights and it takes some mental effort. And gee, it seems that having two jobs will pretty much kill creativity also and cause folks to burn out. At least with a second job, you are probably older. Teens and pre-teens simply aren't there mentally.
It is hard when they come home and their evenings are packed, but I wouldn't make it out as all bad or all exhausting.
Imagine if you had a 12 hour work schedule every day. Now imagine what you would feel, if you didn't have a choice to be there. You had to be there whether you liked it or not. That's what school is like for a lot of kids. Making it extra long probably doesn't help. Many adults would probably turn to worse vices to cope with a schedule like that - alcohol, drugs etc. Extended phone use seems much more minor in comparison.
What proportion, do you think? How would one firm up the estimate with hard data?
It's possible that the phone displaced her craft activities because it's a lower effort dopamine hit, but I think she'd probably spend all of her time sleeping without the phone.
Those who had internet turned to sparks notes, got good grades, good grades meant scholarships and an easier time in college. Those without went further in the hole as they were most likely working after school and trying to bring in extra money to help the family.
Between all of this, it is easy to find yourself mentally exhausted where all you want to do is endlessly scroll things. I can even find myself being drawn to social media when I have had a particularly stressful day at work. Come home exhausted, sit down, scroll, scroll, scroll. Think about the stuff you want/need to do, realize scrolling just requires thumb movement and no thought. Put the phone down after an hour or two and wonder where your evening went.
Ultimately teaching youth responsible habits, whether they be a phone, computer, or anything, is on the parents, but, outside forces really don't make things easier.
The question about energy and motivation is in my opinion also related to tools and methods and not just long hours and early wake up. At OrgPad.com we learn about new approaches to education in conversations with our users and friends all the time since our 2000+ users are mostly students at elementary schools, high schools and universities. We also have a small but very active community of academics using OrgPad to pursue research and personal development. E.g. a teacher created a large OrgPage with many topics related to chocolate. These are roughly: activities, knowledge gathering tasks or experiments and information. Using this approach you can motivate children and their due to COVID-19 involuntary home schooling parents to discover e.g. whether chocolatey burns: https://www.orgpad.com/s/9l8igw The teacher who made all that shares her experiences (in Czech) on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyM6l4FHtb0&list=PLs5kSDmhaz... It seems, the children (and their parents hopefully too) like her approach to digital education a lot. I sincerely think OrgPad.com can help many people with organizing their thoughts and other information and related materials while not sucking their mental energy as other tools and methods do. If you want a short (< 3 minute, in English) taste of what is possible with OrgPad, please have a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtqFWSJT9yw
At the same time, he has an actual school that he can go back to next week, and he can catch up with friends again.
This sort of flexible schooling could be the thing for the future.
So, I guess that is the price of being in a top tier highschool taking AP classes. When I was in a similar situation I probably only spent on average an hour a day on homework.
Kids are curious. Kids learn. They want to learn. You don't have to force them to do it.
Your society might work in the 23rd century with Jean-Luc Picard. It doesn't work in the 21st century with Tim Cook and the quarterly report.
Why do we need the money of someone else to educate our children? Why do we go to work to pay the taxes that keep our kids in what amounts to a prison? Maybe part of how you get that 23rd century society is by stopping with this long and drawn out compulsory education charade. Teach people what they have to know to function in an advanced society, let them find their own interests and learn the things they need to learn to do the things they want. What about our current society precludes that from working? Tim Cook's existence?
In many cases, the purpose of education depends on socioeconomic class or what you, your parents, and/or your social groups decide to take for yourselves.
Nearly everybody promotes widespread basic literacy for social cohesion and basic employment functionality, but higher skills are more of a battle ground. Many people do not want others to progress past the basics for a variety of reasons. One is a fear of "overproduction of elites", another is fear of competition from fully developed people with nice critical thinking skills (cue up George Carlin and his comments on critical thinking).
I'm interested in all time estimates for educational programs, know about Finland's general time frames for youth education, don't know about other national norms, and am happy to hear any suggested readings or other ideas.
As far as socioeconomic class, overproduction of elites and critical thinking skills, I think it is plainly obvious that education systems do not help. I did not learn critical thinking in school, I learned it in life. In fact, what I'm doing right now is critically thinking about the role and effectiveness of rigorous education. They don't do that in rigorous education.
Overproduction of elites cannot happen through rigorous and standard education, it underproduces capable people. I should note that I do not think you can overproduce elites, I want everyone to be one.
I'm not saying that a person doesn't need an education. What I'm saying is that a child doesn't need 13 years of full time schooling and I'm saying that a classroom is not an effective place to learn most things we need to learn.
When we fund schools with property taxes as we do in the USA, then we make education a speculative activity. Disastrous outcome guaranteed.
Example: grade 1-5 can have children of that age range in that section for five years. Ditto for grade 6-9 etc. this way, children can learn at their own pace and time. And from their peers. Gives them more flexibility.
Schools should be for social education too and learning how to become adults. Parents should be more involved in forming peer groups rather than schools.
School buildings should be the only tax payers funded capital expense. And a skeleton crew of teachers with something like khan academy. Schools are where they can congregate for group studies or games or swimming pools or sports or music rooms or robotics meetups or shop work or fill in the blank etc.
Parents should raise children and make decisions. Not school unions. Also..why should those without kids in school pay taxes for everyone and sundry forever? There should be a base minimum towards public contribution for public education(the capital cost of neighborhood school buildings etc), but cost of raising and educating children should be shared amongst those whose children are studying. This will also help people make financially responsibly decisions as well location preferences when they want to grow and raise a family.
I am appalled that the govt..at least in the USA..has the responsibility of child care, child rearing and the other education. What are the parents doing? Parenting doesn’t end with just birthing your progeny.
Isn't watching educational videos on YouTube exactly the thing most of us ( parents ) would want?
Or at least that's what I would have said, if I'd been articulate enough to know how.
The child in this article doesn't sound "addicted" to her phone. It sounds like the wealth of social, creative and interesting activities available through it are just far more interesting than playing dolls with her mum. Maybe it's tough for her mum to accept that her daughter is growing up, but she had to grow out of that at some point - it was inevitable that something would replace it. Would she prefer if it had been TV, like it was for prior generations?
This was the problem for me when I was a kid. I had limited time to play my favorite video games. So I spend whole days in school imagining and planning what to do in the game in order to trade school time for the game time in a very inefficient way, and all my life was optimized to make full use of my game time - even though I was not playing. Separating kids from their favorite activities don't usually work as expected.
Yes, one of the defining symptoms of addiction (to anything) is that it interferes with your normal relationships with others. Addicts see these relationships as hurdles to getting their fix and tend to withdraw from them as they get more and more addicted.
Is there any time when he actually studies?
> My daughter doesn’t make collages or jewelry or sew anymore. A child who used to read in the bath won’t pick up a book unless threatened with the loss of her phone.
> Getting her to make a card for a family member — something she once did for fun — is like getting her to clean her room
> Yet still, each day is a battle over only one thing.
> And little by little, our daughter has chipped away at our rules and resolve.
Congratulations, your child is now in puberty.
Yes, it's like they are despair to find a simple explanation for their child disinterest in things they want her to be interested in when it's just their child growing up.
People are arguing about everything from extended school hours, excessive homework to climate change in this thread.
Could it be that the daughter was raised in a highly sheltered environment and once she hit puberty, she had other interests besides collages, jewelry and sewing?
I wrote this in another comment...
"It's a tale as old as time. Every child is a genius, angel, perfect until they hit puberty. Then we find "rock 'n roll", "rap music", "radio", "MTV", "television" or other culprits for corrupting our youth. Today it is social media. Tomorrow it will be VR. God knows what comes after that."
The entire article is about an overprotective and controlling mother complaining that her daughter is now a teenager. Instead of blaming rap music, she's blaming the iPhone.
It's possible we're not going to adapt well to this e-world. There's no reason to think an evolved ape has the wiring to make the transition without trauma.
Imagine if the iPhone were heroin. Would we be so casual in dismissing it?
Ah yes. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. I remember when the tv ( aka idiot box ) was attacked for being addictive.
> Would we be so casual in dismissing it?
Who is casually dismissing it? There is an entire propaganda campaign against social media. From congress to news to netflix and on, ironically enough, social media itself. Every day we hear about how bad social media is.
But what I was responding to was the article itself. The complaints in the article would exist with or without iphones, apps, social media. Staying up all night talking to friends, waking up at 11 AM, losing interest in childhood stuff, pushing back against the parents, etc are all teenage behavior, not iphone behavior.
I'm not a fan of smartphones as they are and I despise social media. But that's not what the article was really about. I was just trying to stay on topic.
Yeah, but its rather obviously not heroin.
"Imagine if X were Y" isn't really an argument to support "We should act as if X were Y, or at least similar". What needs to be presented is a reason to believe that X is, in fact, like Y.
Its quite obviously literally not-heroin.
If you want to make an argument that it should be treated like heroin because it is in some relevant sense more like heroin or other things that it is broadly accepted should be treated like heroin than it is like other things that it is broadly accepted should not be treated like heroin then...some evidence besides simply stating your belief for the relevant similarity would be a good thing to present.
The point may be that it is akin to "drugs" but not all drugs are like heroin and what he is describing is nothing like heroin cravings and withdrawal.
Why not go with something that invokes less emotions in the reader like "caffeine" or "nicotine"?
Because the itch to check on a notification or scroll through the news feed is surely closer to the itch for a cigarette or your vaporizer than... heroin. That's a big jump there just to describe "compulsive desire".
Why not go with something that invokes less emotions in the reader like "caffeine" or "nicotine"?
Because the itch to check on a notification or scroll through the news feed is surely closer to the itch for a cigarette or your vaporizer than... heroin. That's a big jump there just to describe "compulsive desire".
That's my point. Maybe not heroin; maybe cocaine? Personality changes, treasure wasted pursing new highs, panic and hysteria when its denied...
Edit:
Not getting access to clean drugs is one of the biggest reasons why addicts suffer from health problems and have trouble reducing their dosage. Small portions of harder drugs and random substances that are optically identical are mixed into drugs and strengthen the addiction beyond what the primary ingredient can do.
>It's possible we're not going to adapt well to this e-world
There are very few things humans have ever created that humans are unable to adapt to (and pretty much all of those things are weapons). That's the other side of the unique thing that makes us human: things are constantly changing, and we are constantly adapting to the changes.
For as long as humans have lived, we've tried to distract ourselves from the banality of life. Some part of the population goes down a rabbit hole and stays lost and unproductive: that's not new. The majority of people are mildly productive and then turn to distractions when work is over. And another small group shuns distractions in order to stay as productive as possible for as long as possible. This bell curve has existed through all of human history.
The people who get addicted to apps and social media and phones are the same people who were addicted to novels in the 1800s and comics in the 1930s and TV in the 1950s and video games in the 1990s. Even infinite scrolling isn't new... libraries have existed for a long time, TV just keeps playing forever and ever, and there are more video games than you can play in a lifetime.
When cars and trains were new, people were questioning if evolved apes could survive speeds faster than 30mph. We are not just evolved apes; our specific evolutionary advantage is the ability to adapt, overcome, and get bored even when presented with unlimited stimulation.
[1] https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/when-novels-wer...
But lets be honest - they weren't anywhere near the level of an instantly-available portable object you can keep in your pocket and pings you for attention all day and all night.
There's may be a threshold beyond what we can manage. A Polly-Anna attitude of "we've survived so far!" is not comforting nor convincing.
And the approach of "lets give ever-more-addictive devices to our children unrestricted until some provable damage occurs" is perhaps a negligent policy.
In any case, 1hr of iPhone/day is way too strict for a teenager nowadays. I was lucky to be the 3rd child, and my parents didn’t really paid attention to how I was spending my time. I overdosed on a bunch of things as a kid: TV, videogames, my computer, the internet when I got it (I’m in my late 30s), but then I got over them, except computers, which became my profession.
On the other hand, people my age that were only allowed one hour of Nintendo per day as kids, are still craving the next PlayStation like grown up junkies. Last time I played a videogame I was maybe.. 22.
This is awfully close to gatekeeping. All hobbies are fine in moderation. One is not inherently 'better' than any other.
I just think it deserves some analysis - what's the maximum distracting addictive information rush we can support without becoming disfunctional or chronically obsessed? Isn't it worth finding out, before we give children unrestricted access?
Now there's literally billions being spent on "free" games, "free video", "free" social sites, etc and trying every video, audio, vibration, trick in the book to make them more addicting. It's a trap, it encourages vanity, consumerism, poor body image, etc. I think the best thing you can do for kids these days is make sure they have a healthy amount of time offline.
So I'd say that no, it's not that phones are like crack. There seems to be a disconnect on the parent's expectations when children discover the possibilities of a technology that's unfamiliar to them. In the article they're talking about the ease of controlling TV time but that doesn't even compare in possibilities of communication, entertainment and education.
Heck... I'm sure if you could go back in time you'd discover the first generation to grow up with books, and their desperate parents noticing how the kids aren't ... working the fields and feeding the cattle, I guess.
"We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatsoever to the body" - Scientific American, circa 1859
https://books.google.com/books?id=90hGAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22a+perni...I was like you, spending inordinate amounts of time with computers during my teenage years.
But back then, I was learning useful skills from it.
The computer I owned had almost no games for it. All you could do was program it in either basic or assembly.
Move forward 15 years, my kid who owned a PC from around age 10 was never interested in using it as anything but an entertainment platform.
There was simply way more interesting things to do with it than understanding how it worked and bending the hardware to your will.
And this was pre-social networks.
And that’s okay.
Compared to the effort of creating, there's some seriously low hanging fruit these days.
Many of my friends had games consoles, or computers but they only used BASIC to load games from cassettes. They turned out fine. None of them ever expressed the slightest interest in creating anything but they went on to do other useful things, like teaching or social care.
We are way, way too quick to assign complicated sciencey sounding explanations to stuff earlier generations would have described as common sense. Games are fun. Reading is fun. Talking is fun. Parents used to despair at the hours their daughters would spend on the expensive telephone instead of doing more child-y or creative things, and so what? They all worked out fine. The world is not short on creative people.
Now I am a parent and I tend to let my kids play a lot of game on their computer. But it is different. In the old days computers weren't really that entertaining except if you programmed them. Now they have a lot of passive entertainment value. It's a lot more like watching television or talking on the phone then the engaging hobby I had as a child. I tell them it is important to create media as well as consume media.
I agree with you, this is something that I seem to believe deeply. But why is it important? Do they ask you that? What do you/would you tell them?
My dad never really pushed for me to do it, it was out of necessity. My mom actively fought it. Somehow it stuck with me and I realised the potential to automate my entire life and, later, that I could use it to make money, even if I was underage.
For my own kids, I'm planning to put them in a situation where they will need to learn how to create and be independent, without pushing them in that direction, or helping them out.
I think the basic question is: Are you consumer or producer? When you program or using excel or writing a blog posts, you grow as a person. Apps can be both, so It's more about the ratio. You can try to make nice & creative photos for your Instagram profile or just browse and see what others are up to.
The problem is that kids will tell you that they will produce and learn, but then spend most of the time consuming, which will slowly kills their creativity.
Whatever, social networks are a different thing. I wouldn't mind my kids spend as much time using their gadgets as they want except for social networks. Consuming information, hacking and even some chatting are okay, Instagram addiction is not.
> And little by little, our daughter has chipped away at our rules and resolve.
This sounds as simple as "your child is getting older and becoming more of a real person". Kids question rules. That's pretty normal.
I used to agree with (1), but lately I'm inclined to think that this time, it really is different. Very different. And the primary reason is that unlike TV and books, this is an interactive device explicitly designed to manipulate our psychology into using it more, on a scale we've never seen before. Books never had thousands of engineers observing realtime metrics to make small tweaks to make you use something just a little bit longer. TV isn't a bi-directional communication platform that has thrown teenagers into an arena where they're communicating with thousands of people at a time when they're still figuring out how to communicate in small groups.
Regarding (2), I think people are being far too critical. The author acknowledges many of their own missteps, and they're also going through a time where, iPhone or not, their daughter is growing apart from them, and I imagine that's very difficult emotionally. I also feel like they really humanized how budging a little bit on rules here and there can spiral out of control, and how that feels. I really appreciated that perspective.
Also, one of the first rules of parenting is, never show any sign of weakness in public, or you will be attacked ruthlessly. It's a variant on the old saying, "Never let them see you sweat."
This bias in the literature makes it look like there are some brilliant parents out there, who have found the secret for success that the rest of us can "just" follow. There are of course parallels in the business literature.
The best formula I have observed is that obedient, self disciplined children tend to have obedient, self disciplined parents.
I overheard a discussion between two friends about the effects of TV on behavior. One friend's argument: "Of course commercial TV affects behavior. That's its purpose." This stuff is designed to manipulate us. Maybe that's possible with books too, but books have just not risen to that level of sophistication.
I agree with everything you say except for this. We have friends (2 kids now) where mom is like that. On first glance all is perfect, she is perfect mom that manages to do so many things, all is great etc. Apart from actual reality once you know them better and you know where to look. At the end they are no better than rest of us, in some aspects far from it (this kind of behavior stems from some deeper issue(s), which tend to manifest in various ways). And all this charade starts to look pathetic pretty quickly.
Be honest, open, laugh at your fails, we all went through it, its normal. It will get you further with almost everybody including yourself. Definitely with me.
/ If I misunderstood what you meant then sorry for the preaching.
Parenting is a thankless job is fraught with insecurity and doubt, and every parent thinks they are not doing good enough, and constantly comparing themselves to other parents. Seeing a parent who shows weakness, who is not doing a good job, is a vindication for parents. "Hey, look, I'm not as bad as HIM/HER". You don't want other parents to think that about you, so you make sure you never EVER allow parents to see you make a mistake because you know the first thing that will happen is they will go home and talk about it with their parent/parent/friend/whoever.
Parenting is just like any other job. You can be an employee, but if people think you're a screw up don't expect to be invited to any social functions. Except in this case it's not just you who is getting excluded... It's your child and the rest of your family.
I agree and hope people don't take this in a defeatist way. I've found that the biggest impact you can have on anyone's behavior (adult or child) is to set the example. Kids can smell hypocrisy a mile away, and besides, they only know how to act the way the see. Work on yourself, and your kids will follow.
I agree in principle, but I find that that doesn't map very well to the digital world.
This past Saturday, I spent about six hours staring at a screen. My kids did too. I was making music, an act I find creative, meaningful, and intellectually stimulating. They were mostly watching YouTube videos of people playing Minecraft.
At the primitive monkey brain level where "setting an example" kicks in, all my kids saw was that I was staring at a screen so they did too.
Is there something else you would rather your kids be doing?
I may be old fashioned, but Minecraft strikes me as faux-creative. It's not something you get "better" at. That's just my reaction, having watched it done. It puts you in a state of flow without actually flowing anywhere.
So, want your kids to go outside? Go outside. Want them to read? Read. Want them to practice cello? Practice cello.
Want them to learn how to build digital creative? Let them see you building your own digital creations.
From my experience and observation of other parents and kids, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes they want to be like you, sometimes the opposite.
By doing the activity yourself, you expose the child to it, and they may decide to take part. Over time, they will almost certainly take interest. That doesn't mean you read a book one day and get frustrated because they are playing video games. You read a book every weekend because you want to, and over time, it influences how your child perceives best use of free time, demonstrates discipline, and showcases a non video game activity.
We now have to work HARD to keep these devices away from him. Part of it, of course, is he observes how much attention we pay them but his eyes definitely light up differently when they are turned on. And that's without the manipulative, 1000-engineers-optimizing-for-your-addiction software built into them.
I honestly find it harder and harder to believe these things do anything positive for us. I 100% believe they can I just think we've turned them into something ugly, right now.
I think the TV, film, and print media attempted to do the same, they were/are just much less effective at it. For example, watch a "slow burn" movie like Alien. Most modern movies, by comparison, seem to be edited to keep our short attention span tuned in. Same with the old adage "sex sells"...we've always been trying to hijack human attention we're just so good about it now it's essentially been weaponized.
I think the hardest thing for this parent was balancing what was right for their child (and they seemed to be confident in their opinion) and what would hold them back socially at school. It's hard to say no to a child that says "Everyone else has an iPhone" because we all remember being that kid left out from something when we were young.
I think the big difference is the adaptivity of the phone. Books don't figure out what personally engrosses you and tweak the rest of the book so you can't put it down. That feels too powerful IMO.
Contrast that with so many apps whose main feed uses some sort of infinite scroll.
There's DND (Do Not Disturb) mode for this. It's just a button click away on all phones.
As one of the thousands of engineers dedicated to making you use your consumer electronics a little bit more: it's really easy to defeat my work. You make a conscious decision not to use the product, you catch yourself using it, you stop. Do it for about a month and you've broken the habit. That's why we look at metrics like MAUs and L28s. There is basically nothing I can do about a user who actively doesn't want to use the product; we basically throw up our hands and say "Not our target market."
The reason my job exists is because hundreds of millions of people don't think like that, and don't have any conscious opinion one way or another about my product. It's those users we're trying to influence, the ones who are basically ambivalent, allocate their time based on emotion, and don't have any strong beliefs one way or another about what they should be spending their time on or how they want their life to look. There are enough of them that this market is worth billions, but everything I do - all the engagement work and instant gratification and positioning subtle hints in the UI - is about influencing the people who don't care one way or another. If that is not you - if you have actively made a conscious choice what you want to spend your time on, and it's not watching TV more - you won't even see my product. (It was actually pretty awkward when I took my job, because I work on TVs but watch basically none and didn't even own a TV beforehand.)
You cannot absolve yourself from responsibility just because your target audience 'had a choice'.
I feel like I've heard this before, re: alcoholism, obesity, etc... It's true that if you just decide to stop the behavior you don't like, you're cured. But it is so far from easy that it's a lifelong journey for many people.
Your job is not just to compete for a limited number of zombies, but to keep as many people that actually do care from climbing out of the hole. People are not binary between zombie/not zombie, they're on a spectrum, and I think it's naive to think that anyone with the slightest desire to not use your product can just close it & quit.
Books and other forms of media have been optimised to be addictive to read/watch for decades. It might not happen at the same scale, but the increase in scale also means that the mediums get less personal. I think that balances things out in some ways.
It really does not seem different to me.
"playing games" was using assembly language and pascal with s3m libraries to program a game.
With my kids I've felt the rise of anger when they want to be autonomous and pursue their own interests. I mean, I was taught that parenthood is subjugation.
But just like my dad couldn't realise that there was a rising future in gaming as an industry or the internet, because it was so far removed from his traditional roots, who am I to say that Minecraft, Youtube, or some variant of it won't be the future operating system of society.
I’m afraid it is not so with an iPhone. Our phones take without giving. Now excuse me I should probably log off and do something useful.
...this month, maybe this year, until the next fad hits the 'net and all those influency types need to adapt or exit.
Not everything has to be directly related to employment. It's nice to know how to cook a meal, even if you have absolutely no ambition to work in a restaurant.
Why are you so convinced this sentence isn't going to describe you in 20 years?
This idea that things like iPhones, or video games, or any other piece of technology cannot possibly be productive or profitable in the future, it's got to die.
When I was young, my passion for computers meant I wouldn't become the lawyer people suggested I should be, but now I make more than most of my lawyer friends. Things change, and "using an iPhone" may end up being the key to future happiness, career opportunities, or who knows what?
For every one of those, there are hundreds of streamers who quit their jobs to focus on streaming but ended up broke, and thousands of streamers who spend every free moment outside of their day job trying to build a following but never get there.
The old dream of rock stardom, well, you get a guitar and figure out that it's actually hard and maybe you shelve that. Streaming... anybody can play Minecraft, so you can keep the dream alive a lot longer.
It seem unproductive to deal with bizarre flights of fancy on the part of HN commenters, so I'll get back to my phone or something else productive now.
You know exactly what I was trying to say. ONE counter example to a statistic doesn't invalidate the statistic and you were trying to say that just because very very very rarely someone makes productive use of their phone (one out of millions), that therefore there's no problem with how people use phones. Even you have to see how that argument misses the mark.
This thread exists on a post where someone laments that their child, upon turning 10, stopped making arts and crafts, and started maintaining social media accounts and spending a lot of time on her phone.
This thread itself started with someone pushing back against the assumptions in that article, pointing out that many of us of a certain age dealt with what sound like similar argument, spending all of our time on a newfangled computer, indoors, when "normal" kids were outside doing outside things. Or in this particular case, spending time on the computer instead of studying. I relate to this, because while my parent were more supportive, I too spent my childhood on a series of entry-level computers: a Timex Sinclair TS-1000, a Commodore VIC-20, and so on.
That comment, and therefore this thread, specifically says, "who am I to say that Minecraft, Youtube, or some variant of it won't be the future operating system of society." So true!
Then another user, seemingly not able to understand how computers seemed like an incredible dead-end waste of time in the early 1980s, suggests that phones are completely different, because "your interests in computing would lead to job opportunities."
That's the context in which I posted. Remembering that what seemed like a completely dead-end waste of time turned out to be one of the best careers in the world, and seeing how dismissive the most recent comment was.
So I tried to give an example, just one example, to show how the parent commenter's assumptions resulted in an unfair blanket statement. On a thread about a little girl who doesn't color now that she found Instagram. Within the context of "lead[ing] to job opportunities."
Does that make sense now? Obviously most people aren't going to derive their primary income from streaming in the future. I never made that claim.
It turns out 99.9% of people who color and make string art and fashion paper clothes for dolls also don't end up making a career out of that when they're adults. In fact, given a 10-year-old child, perhaps job opportunities shouldn't even be the primary concern.
So your most recent comment says I ignored your question, which is weird, because I didn't actually see a question mark:
You're taking one example and generalizing it. I'm sure someone did something productive with cocaine once too, but that's not generally its outcome. (just a random example that occurs to me, I do not agree with the "War on some drugs" btw it was just an example)
I still don't see what sort of question you were trying to ask there, or I'd try to answer it.
Now you're mentioning statistics, which is interesting to me. What exactly is the statistic on what's going to happen 15 years from now when this 10-year-old kid is entering the work force? How are these future statistics derived, anyway? Man, what I would have given for such a thing back when I was ten!
Given how people are, I'm guessing my attempt to remind you of the context in which these comments exist will fail. But hey, my parents insisted I spend time as a youngster writing, so it's good practice.
TL;DR: You don't know what the future holds for the current generation of young kids using phones, and neither do I. But the present hold many surprises for those in the past who never could have predicted that I would end up making a nice living with those weird computer things, or that people could possibly ever earning a living making YouTube videos or playing video games on twitch or doing whatever an instagram influencer does, and there are probably many, many, many more people involved in video editing and production today than one might have expected 15 or 20 years ago.
That's all. Don't be so quick to assume that smartphones--or any other technology--are 100% bad. That's it. That's the only thing I was saying.
P.S. Personally, I don't think the kid's problem is the phone, but the social media. TikTok and Instagram are a poison to humanity.
I missed so many experiences sitting in front of the computer all day, it didn’t really get me any further than if I had taken a more modest interest.
YouTube and Minecraft and these digital realities are fake realities. Whatever happiness they provide is temporary and short lived. It took me until my 30s to realize this and now I’m starting all over again.
Digital stuff is fine in moderation, but I will not let my children build a life around it like my parents allowed me to.
He plays Minecraft/KSP about 90 minutes each night.
But he'd always, always accept an offer to do something else with me or someone else in the family.
So I make sure, as his father, to make that offer sometimes. And I also feel fine if I'm feeling like a book or a movie or something else.
Not all kids become [insert teenager cliches] upon the onset of teenage-dom, for all the different reasons this can be true... but when I was his age, I definitely defaulted to getting on the computer instead of doing other things.
I do think it's interesting how little discussion there is in culling digital behaviors moreso during pandemic times. I personally don't have a lot of interest in any of the new iPhones because my iPhone mostly lives on my desk at home. It hardly ever gets out.
I want tech to augment their lives, not replace them (or destroy them).
I certainly don't.
Then I got a better PC and spent time trying to make website to earn money because everyone was doing it.
I failed. AdSense didn't pay me anything. I realized it was more profitable to make a blog on how to make money online than go try if yourself.
I built my first gaming rig. Played few games and got bored after a few months.
I ended up watching death note on YouTube through recommendations.
Finished 500+ anime within a year. It was the best past time after school.
Got bored of that. This time, I though of making money using software. Worked with WordPress, earned some cash fixing people's site and optimizing them by removing useless plugins, adding yoast SEO, improving cache and moving people from shared hosting on GoDaddy.
I started to tinker with PHP code and themes like Divi, adata. Then I wanted to build a CMS. Looked up stuff and it felt complicated so after trying for a few weeks, dropped the idea.
Now I got into novels and manga because I was running out of anime. Probably 700+ or so titles. Enjoyed that for a bit. Finished Chinese, russian, Japanese, etc light novels using Google translate. It was fun. I was addicted.
Now something clicked again and I purchased courses on udemy for 90% discount (yeah it is always discounted). Finally, I knew enough programming after few weeks to create a CMS. I did that but it turned pretty poor compared to WordPress.
Joined an online non-profit therapy group. Listened to people and gave advice...in retrospect, k shouldn't have done that.
Joined discord, spent time there and well learnt more about weird internet cultures and spheres.
Started to get worried about future. Spent time researching health insurance, FIRE, investment and saving strategies. Opened broker account on few online sites using my dad's identity. Landed on r/wsb. Spent few weeks researching and stalking people there. Concluded it was nothing more than gambling. I started buying equity. Built a decent portfolio. Then diversified with Forex and SIP index fund.
Roughly more or less how I spent my teenage years. There are lot of other small and things I did but will be too personal.
Moderation has always been necessary.
None of which is possible on iPhones and iPads these kids are growing up with. Even if they did escape the attention algorithm long enough to get bored and explore there is nothing to discover it's a locked black box.
iSH, code learning apps, Codecademy via the iPad browser, iBooks, Library Genesis for getting any book in existence for free, Duolingo, cloud coding. I could go on...
There's many, many ways of learning through these devices.
Still a locked down black box designed around attention algorithms and I'm getting tired of pretending it's not.
Who cares? Just because you and many others on HN learned some stuff from fiddling with some computers doesn't mean that learning a language is lesser.
"Ah, you aren't doing things that I did as a kid that lead to my high income! You're trash, kid! Git gud!"
Wasm and WebGL certainly are.
kids have access to magic these days, while algorithmic abuse is rampant, thats not an iPad's core proposition.
You can artificially lock down the device and expose only such things, but default mode is YouTube and Roblox type stuff.
Not sure what your point is here.
Err.... Wasm? WebGL?
It has a generally standards-compliant browser, so while you may not be able to use assembly language and pascal, you can probably connect to something that lets you write and run programs through the browser (whether they actually run in the browser or remotely).
The UI isn't ideal for it, but neither was the membrane keyboard on my Timex/Sinclair 1000.
Not all screen time is created equal, and there are any number of ways for a child to be creative and learn and socialise in the digital world as suppose to the physical one.
The social networks are a bit different. What value is a child getting from them that they wouldn't get from a WhatsApp group? As other commenters have pointed out, these big platforms are engineered to the last detail to 'increase engagement'. To put it another way - they are purposefully addictive and I don't see the value that might make that worthwhile.
My stepfather refused to let me take piano lessons, because those would turn you into a "sissy" (e.g., Liberace).
Yeah, I'm still angry about it.
Give it a shot!
Your comment made me think of that book, and I certainly found it very useful in overcoming some of the lingering consequences of my odd upbringing. My mother was not abusive, but was alternately neglectful and controlling, and I only recently found out that she was continuing patterns from her own childhood. I highly recommend the book if your situation is at all similar.
The parent says "my daughter was a creative genius, and then..." as if to imply that she isn't any more. But it sure sounds like she has creative pursuits to me:
* "She wants Roblox. All the kids have it, and it seems harmless enough. She’s building her dream house" This sounds like a creative pursuit to me.
* "She wants to talk with her friends. I don’t see any harm in FaceTime." She's talking with her friends.
* "She says she wants to do a TikTok while we’re in the “aesthetic” woods" She's creating TikToks! How cool is that, and how creative! Again we see she's not a passive consumer, she's still a creator - it's just that the medium has changed.
The real problem here is that the daughter used to pursue creative activities that the parent approved of (sewing, drawing). Now she does creative activities that the parent does not approve of or understand.
The parent should bridge the gap by trying to understand the things their daughter spends time on. Instead they lambast them from a distance! It's such a shame to me that the article ends with a note about how the parent will try to convince themselves that creating tiktok videos is creative. What?!? Creating videos isn't creative?? Of course it is! You should be encouraging and reveling in this sort of behavior!
I guess it particularly rankles because my parents did the exact same thing when I was young - they constantly tried to get me to stop using the computer. They never took the time to understand that I was using it creatively - I was coding games, writing books and poetry, learning python, modding warcraft 3. But of course they never saw the creativity in modding warcraft. "Oh, he's playing video games again..."
P.S. and as I suggested, I do agree with the premise - phones definitely can destroy creativity, they definitely are addictive, they definitely shouldn't be given to kids... These are critical problems, well worth addressing and being worried about. But if I had to choose a single thing that was even more important, it would be fostering understanding relationships between parent and child.
My seven year old runs around with my old iPhone 5. We've locked it down to essentially be nothing more than a camera, but she'll still make videos for her whole screen time allotment for the day. I used to wonder if this was a "good" use of her time.
Then she discovered iMovie and now edits videos, adds transitions and music, makes her little sister an actor in movies... and I remembered when my parents worried about me spending hours in QBasic making little sine-wave art with music playing in the background.
So he wrote an android service that'll send him the location whenever he needs it and installed it on the phone. His son doesn't know about it... yet.
He fully understands this is an "arms race" of sorts and I think he feels like if his son is smart enough to outsmart his dad, he's probably smart enough to handle himself with a little less supervision. (I think the kid was in about 8th grade at the time.)
If your child has their own Apple ID, Screen Time works across any other Apple devices linked to that Apple ID.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304
In my case, we've turned off all web access, have certain educational games available for a limited amount of time, and only allow outbound texts to grandma.
It's extremely robust – most of the hacks I've read about (or heard from parents with older children!) involve trying to record the screen while you type in the unlock code to change a restriction. Physical attacks are also popular: shoulder surfing is a given, but one coworker said their kid put a tiny layer of hand lotion over the screen to capture where they touched and then attack the code. Clever.
No, definitely not “of course”. Creativity is not defined by the technology or even the result, but is a... well, property of a process. I - personally - can snap a video without being creative at all, and the video may happen to be good. Like how a talking parrot can drop a joke at an appropriate moment, without understanding it at all ;)
It all really depends on what goes in one’s head as they do something.
That is - to recognize if the kid (or whoever, age does not matter here) is creative just talk to them and learn what the heck are they thinking. Like asking to share what’s their passion for that hobby, or teach how they do it - even the most basic replies would quite probably involve some descriptions of the logical processes running in one’s head.
(I do not mean to argue if your kid having a passion for recording videos is creative or not. Just saying that it’s not universally applicable “of course”.)
her other articles: https://stephaniegrunerbuckley.medium.com/
writes for Modern Parent:
https://medium.com/modern-parent/i-used-to-be-cool-now-i-emb...
https://medium.com/modern-parent/my-kid-is-an-asshole-how-do...
she is just using her family as muse for writing fodder. pay no mind.
Or, perhaps, accept that during a pandemic, when your child's entire social sphere has collapsed, the internet, Roblox, Minecraft, TikTok, et. al. are the closest they can get to interacting with and making friends.
>When friends visit, she occasionally asks them to watch her latest TikTok videos. Some are even funny and creative. Or so I tell myself. It helps with the guilt.
I can't be the only person who finds this comment to be really sad.
This isn't the iPhone's fault. This is someone failing to support their child's hobbies because they're not the perfect idyllic vision they had. End of story.
The author obviously wanted to allow for a balance but it quickly grew out of control to the point where the only thing that mattered was her phone. That's not healthy, and that's not failing to support her hobby.
Being cautious with assuming causations is usually a good idea - but it falls flat when we know the causal chains that are at work.
In the case of climate change, we know for a fact that humanity is releasing ever-growing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and we also know the physical chain reactions this CO2 will trigger. Predicting climate change in broad strokes is not statistical guesswork, it's just applying physics.
Likewise, we know apps are addictive because they are actively being designed that way. Maximizing user retention and engagement is what app developers do. It's how they make money and it's one of the core metrics that investors use to estimate the value of an app.
So you have someone showing signs of addiction after using a device that was specifically designed to be addictive. Occam's razor really doesn't give a lot of room for alternative hypotheses here.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
What does this have to do with climate change? Ever consider getting help for your climate change addiction? "My daugher was a creative genuis, and then we introduced her to climate change." Apparently for some people, climate change isn't a science, it's a religion.
> So you have someone showing signs of addiction after using a device that was specifically designed to be addictive. Occam's razor really doesn't give a lot of room for alternative hypotheses here.
Could be that. Or maybe it's something else..."My husband and I said she could have a phone when she turned 14..."
It could be that the mother controlled her daughter's life and once she's hit puberty, she got a little bit rebellious. She wasn't so interesting in sewing as when she was 8 and needed her mother's approval. But now her priorities is friends, boys, etc?
It's a tale as old as time. Every child is a genius, angel, perfect until they hit puberty. Then we find "rock 'n roll", "rap music", "radio", "MTV", "television" or other culprits for corrupting our youth. Today it is social media. Tomorrow it will be VR. God knows what comes after that.
Maybe it's climate change. That's what causing these teenagers to become moody and rebellious.
Every generation of parents thinks their kid is the smartest and then they become teenagers and suddenly they're moody and want to do things that their parents don't approve of. That's the basic fact underlying this. Any argument you make about kids changing when they become teenagers needs to have this realization at its core. Once you realize that, then you can start to make judgements about whether or not their behavior is cause for alarm or not.
Yes apps are addictive, because they're designed that way. But I can tell you what else is designed to be addictive: literally everything. Do you think Doritos taste the way they do by accident? They don't fall off the Dorito tree tasting like that. Or what about the chip companies that has the slogan "betcha can't eat just one" or "once you pop, the fun don't stop"? Likewise, why do TV shows and movies never line up with reality, even if they're based on a true story? Because they were designed to be more interesting than reality. Why do episodes always end on a cliff-hanger, or people leaving a theater say "man they really set that up for a sequel"? Because it was designed to be addictive. Why do most songs last about three minutes and have two verses and two repetitions of the chorus? Because the producer knows that's the most addictive way to write a song.
I mean literally everything: Why is bread and milk at the back of a grocery store? Because they know you're going to buy that anyway, and if it's at the back, you'll need to walk past a whole bunch of other things that are all designed to be addictive, with colorful marketing signs designed to maximize engagement. Why do automakers make cars with smooth gear changes and plush leather seats and feature-filled entertainment consoles and a jillion speakers? Because that keeps people happier in their car and more likely to buy another one of those cars in the future. Why do people love dogs? Because humans purposefully designed wolves into the perfect human companion, and everything about a dog was designed to increase user retention and engagement. Why does cola have caffeine added to it? Because caffeine is addictive. There is literally no other reason.
"It's designed to be addictive" isn't an excuse, because everything is designed to be addictive. So start with "my child is turning into a teenager and teenagers like different things than children" and then subtract "everything is designed to be addictive" from your reasons. How do you talk to your children when they want more Pringles or a(nother) dog or to stay up late watching TV, or when they're upset that their first car doesn't have Bluetooth audio? I'll bet this author wouldn't write an article shaming their kids for that.
I don't think running counts as something humans designed but the hobby of running absolutely is designed to be addictive and maximize user engagement. Is there any reason for running shoes to be bright red or lime green or neon orange? Most normal shoes aren't, so why are running shoes? Because brightly colored running shoes sell better than more neutral colors [3]. Likewise, Strava is a very popular running app. Why is it more popular than many competitors? Because it compares your results to someone else's results and challenges you to do that run again, but faster so you can beat this other person's time. That's pretty addictive and of course it was specifically designed that way. There are even people who consider themselves Strava addicts [4].
You're right that everything is too expansive, but everything humans have designed, we've designed to be as addictive as possible (or at least to increase user engagement and retention). Yes, even the piano... the instrument was originally a pipe organ operated by buttons and levers. That's difficult to play and difficult to use in your home so we designed a smaller version called the clavichord but it was too difficult to hear in stage performances (and performing in front of a live audience is... addictive and people want to keep doing it) so along came the harpsichord which was later refined into the piano because the piano is easier to play than a lever-operated pipe organ and if no one cared about user engagement and retention, why bother making a piano that's easier to play?
[1] https://weather.com/news/news/2018-10-03-fruit-so-sweet-zoo-...
[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domest...
[3] https://www.racked.com/2018/1/9/16849572/running-shoes-so-ug...
[4] https://triathlonmagazine.ca/gear/am-i-becoming-too-addicted...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
So much confirmation bias at work here.
Whether it’s desirable for their child to be making digital content and publishing it is another question entirely, but the title premise never seems to be addressed directly. The article is a long-winded way to say ~“we keep making up arbitrary rules for the phone, and then we realize they’re arbitrary so we change them, but we never actually sit down and pick some sane and long-lived rules”.
We can actually take technology and make it something worthwhile and enriching. It doesn't have to be this way.
When TV came out there was actually a lot of hope that it could be used to educate people for example.
There are a few aspects which are worrying:
- Social pressure to be connected constantly increases for children below 14 years.
- Sites like TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, etc. are designed to be addictive. Children at such a young age do not have the same level of self control like you.
- The longer kids spend time on these platforms, the smaller their bubble gets where they live in.
I understand that as a good parent you can try to explain such things and guide them. But many won't.
Recently I was invited to a school meeting about screen time. I was shocked at some recommendations, for example, age = hours of screen time per week. Also many parents trust tablets and phones way more than desktops. This also worries me, because arguably there are more ways to be creative on desktops.
I also spent endless hours playing video games when I was young and chatting about them on forums and irc. But social media is on a whole other level and I think most people do not even realize it.
The social media apps on the phones are specifically agonized over, tested, and refined continuously to increase interaction, aka make users into addicts.
This is absolutely a problem, but I don't think it's a problem that can be solved at an individual level, and denying this privilege to your child would IMO do more harm than good as they'd miss out on social events or provide a reason for bullying, etc.
Withdrawing from social media and the bullshit rat race of the "attention economy" is absolutely the right thing to do, but it has to be a voluntary decision.
I don't have a link to it but I remember reading an article which was saying something alone the lines of everyone having a limited amount of "weirdness points" and that we must spend them wisely. In today's society, being isolated from social media is a "weirdness point" (whether we like it or not) and it's up to each individual to determine whether it is worth for them to take the hit.
I have withdrawn from social media as an adult because I am at a stage in life where I don't have to prove anything to anyone, don't have to be "cool" kid and have other ways to play the "status game". However for a typical teenager social media popularity and the "cool" factor is probably their biggest assets when it comes to status and I don't think it's fair to be putting them at a disadvantage by denying them access to it.
I thought it was a good non-technical presentation of what the recommendations / notifications work like. These were basically the pillars of engagement, ad revenue and... can't remember the third. We know it's a metaphor - what would you show otherwise - the code for rearranging timeline and best ad selection?
> showing a family with the worst case of social media addiction the writers could imagine
It's Requiem for the dream, the tech edition. Sure it's an extreme, but also it's not an unrealistic extreme. They picked elements we see - replacing in-person interacting with gamified social networks, rise/normalisation of extremist communities, literal addiction to continuing use.
> preteens can't last half an hour before smashing open locked boxes to get a hit
My first lockpick exercise was the keyboard lock on a PC to work around parent's time control, so... sure.
I will add that remote school adds in a live video component and my kids Facetime with their friends while playing games. I find that encouraging since it's the opposite of social isolation.
Clearly these things can be addictive. We know from Asian internet cafes that they are.
As an anecdote... I was raised on TV basically after school for a couple hours, basically latch key. I was also raised on a computer. The computer basically became my primary focus. My current job is software engineering and I was way ahead of the game even before college. Today, I don't watch TV at all.
So I think there is a big distinction between active and passive screen time.
That being said, when I go camping or off to a remote cabin with no Internet, I find it nice to disconnect. You could argue that's a more natural state for us so I think it's important to take that time with your kids for a week or two where all there is is nature.
Spends less time dreaming, and more time hanging out with her friends in virtual environments?
Congratulations, your creative child is now a budding creative teenager. She'll be fine.
You're cruising to do damage to your relationship with her with all this pearl-clutching, though. Might keep an eye on that.
My theory is that like everything this requires a balance and gradual introduction. Start early, let kids make mistakes, punish them for said mistakes, let them learn lessons.
Enforcing super strict rules has never helped anyone I think. 1h a day is quite strict in my opinion especially if consumed in multiple sessions. If I had just started doing something and it took me 15min to get fully absorbed and in 15min I had to call it quits I'd be pretty angry myself to be honest.
I can make an analogy with access to sweets here. Our boy aged 6 now has had unrestricted access to a cupboard full of variety of sweets since he was 3. And believe me he loves sweets! Technically he can go and take as many sweets as many times as he wants to and no one would probably understand. But we've said it is 2 sweets a day, reasonable quantities. This was strictly enforced early on and now we can 100% trust him to pick whatever he wants when he wants. Because he knows when is a good time and what is a good amount. He'll even come home from school some days and say he'll only eat one sweet today as they've had chocolate cake for pudding at school.
So cut your kids some slack and let them learn themselves rather than locking everything behind locks - physical or digital.
https://www.mother.ly/news/should-you-let-your-kids-eat-as-m...
The way I see it, pre-phone their daughter was probably much more engaged with her parents and was doing more manual creative stuff. After the phone appeared, she distanced herself and got absorbed by it.
I don't get why so many people here are trying to defend smartphones/social media?
Isn't it pretty obvious they are addictive? And to a young kid, that doesn't know any better, it can get really bad.
Social attention focused inward toward family --> Social attention turning outward towards others + establishing an identity apart from that of the family. This is totally normal.
It's like serving a kid a plate of food with vegetables and meth side-by-side and the meth dealer is making every effort they can to push the meth into the vegetables.
When school started online, my 8 year old was initially really engaged, but then started getting a bit bored once she got into it, and would watch Youtube videos. I was fine with an hour after she finished her school work, but the time she spent watching slowly increased until she wasn't even doing her homework. She'd erase the history on her browser so I couldn't tell how long she was watching for (but fortunately I know the tricks, and was able to figure it out). This led me to blocking Youtube (and all other video sites) on the router. I looked into Youtube kids, but I can't limit it in the ways I want (certain times of day, certain videos), and so I just outright ban it. I also found Youtube too addictive with its short videos, and so now only allow Netflix Kids at certain times.
The best solution IMO would be that I could say something like "these apps/sites need my permission", and then every time she tried watching a video or opening that app, etc, I'd get a notification on my phone asking if I should allow it. That would really put the control in the parent's hands. Could apply to tik tok too - I may be OK with it if my kid has to get permission to post a video, and get permission after every 20 mins of use/watching 20 videos.
Until such controls are available, I just saying a blanket 'no' to some of these apps/sites. She can use them how she sees fit once she's emancipated.
I had managed to get myself unrestricted internet access from pretty much age 10 onwards using a "broken" laptop I had secretly fixed, and the "restricted" iPod Touch that I had unlocked by editing the Springboard.plist.
At age 14 they had a talk with me where they said they finally were going to give me some restricted internet access and I almost burst out laughing because I had been online hours per day for the last 4 years, but managed to keep it together.
Ten years later and it's a fun story we all laugh about. I wonder what I would be doing today if it wasn't for those parental controls motivating me to break systems.
Then add in the need for a parent account (or two) plus a child account (or two or three) for every service / app kids want to use and all of a sudden you're asking people to manage dozens of accounts. Throw in multiple platforms and you could literally be trying to manage two or three dozen sets of parental controls and it's not static. The apps / services are constantly churning.
It's easy to criticize the OP of this article, but I know the feeling. The intent to be a good moderator is there, but the tooling isn't and after a while you just give up, turn a 10 year old into an 18 year old, and moderate over their shoulder instead.
The distinction between apps is huge too. Things like Minecraft, Roblox, educational games, etc. are pretty harmless and somewhat creative. Apps like TikTok and Facebook are worthless and should be banned (by parents) IMO.
Initially I was amazed at the exploration and learning. So I let it happen. Of course, its easier to just have no phone time with a 2 year old. So I sympathize with parents of older kids where the dynamic becomes one of peer pressure.
Not really condoning phone use with teenagers and I'll play the devil's advocate here: If "everyone is doing it" - is that OK? Why have your kid be the outlier in these situations?
I actually had to look up James Charles, referenced in the article. James is 21. The iPhone came out in 2007 - so presumably James has had access or been around a smartphone well before his teenage years. Yet, the videos are creative and immensely popular. The point is, creativity is less in physical space and more in cyber space now...
1) They are bad parents 2) They are good parents 3) Smartphones are a qualitatively different addiction problem than TV, comic books, or other demonized technology of yore 4) It is correlation not causation 5) Her problems were partly caused by the iPhone
It seems more like he set boundaries, then let his daughter run past them. Setting boundaries is hard, it takes strength, but you can't sacrifice boundaries to "keep the peace". Short team peace is long term hell.
Feels like that's most parents these days. At least - feels like it is within the bay area.
They are cheaper than phones and the plans are well priced too. Around $15/mo for service.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/09/apple-extends-the-app...
The author is completely wrong about this, so I can only assume that their kid is indeed being creative and has manipulated them into believing it.
Overall... this does seem like an "onset of adolescence" thing. 20 years ago this author would have been bemoaning that their teenage daughter spent all day on the land-line with her friends.
This time it is so different. On the landline with friends you could talk but not be manipulated by external actors. Landlines are not exactly skinner boxes and also they cannot be thrown into one's pocket and be with them virtually everywhere. This time it is different.
This seems fixable, either on the dev side or with better communication about how the feature actually works. There's no reason to dupe people.
Could be a bug somewhere that I'm not being hit by, of course.
Also, could be the article writer using parent-controlled screen time limits and having accidentally(?) unchecked the "block at limit" option in the rule, which would let the phone-user hit the "ignore limit" button for it.
Iphones and social media are a vice on my generation. I used social media a lot a few years ago, but I had to quit it because I learned about nosurf[1] and how horrible for the mind these new technologies can be. However, many people I know are stuck in this addiction - scrolling on Instagram 4+ hours a day, sending streaks[2] to 10 people at once on Snapchat, who screw up their sleep schedule just to get another anime episode in. They obsess over the number of likes they get on each post and send empty platitudes to each other on their birthdays. Of course these things I just listed are not the fault of each and every person, but a product of what happens when you bring together a billion dollar company who wants people to spend as much time on their app as possible, and an impressionable generation whose brains haven't even finished developing yet.
From reading this, you may come to the conclusion that I'm some jaded teenager who hates technology and social media. But I understand the magnitude of technology and the potential it brings. I'd say I'm much more not only intelligent but wiser because of the countless podcasts, debates, lectures, articles, and music I've consumed in my 'internet life'. But that is beside the point - This parent's experience sent a chill down my spine because it is almost exactly how my parents must have felt when I got my first phone. We originally had a contract (not using it after 10, not using it in bed, etc.) but little by little my addictive brain pushed those boundaries, and when I didn't get what I wanted I had tantrums. And though I've curbed on my screen time (at least on my phone), There's always that pull, always that invisible string that attaches me to my phone. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this experience that this parent had with her child almost exactly mirrors my parent's experience with me, and most likely many, many other parents.
Got a teenage girl an iPhone.
She became a horrible person. She lost it for a month. Became the Sweetest happiest person ever. Gave it back. Exact same mood shift.
Repeat for years. It caused her such horrific depression. Mostly from social media drama. As an adult she’s finally realizing how her mood shifts because of it.
Younger kids can get iPhones when they move out.
They are quite happy in life, although Dad is very unfair about phones.
I'm sure this sucks to experience, and I'll experience it in my due time, but - your kid has friends now, and is no longer wholly dependent on you. It's life. Before cellphones, this person would be lamenting that her kid was spending all her time at the mall with her friends, or off in the woods running around with the neighborhood children.
You gotta let Rapunzel out of the tower.
> ...
> The worst part is that our child has changed. She used to rush to our bed as soon as she woke, demanding cuddles and to “Talk Friends.” We played with puppets and stuffed animals in the morning, getting the “friends” to sing and act out scenes from plays like Robin Hood and Beauty and the Beast. We all got involved. Those days are gone. I understand she’s probably too big for “Talk Friends,” but it’s heartbreaking watching her race into our room each morning to grab her phone.
The problem is not the phone. The problem is making the child choose between attachment and authenticity. She doesn't run to you anymore because you're constantly fixated & raging about the phone. Not because she prefers her phone to her parents. You've told her it's not safe to be herself around you.
The current generation is basically digitally connected from the day they are born and yet the 'general purpose computing devices' they have access to are walled gardens like phones and tablets. And with the way Apple is going about it, even Macbooks will soon join the ranks.
Well, that right there is your mistake. Instead of James Charles introduce her to VSauce or Primitive Technology or any number of youtube channels that are truly related to creativity /mind inquiry.
I used to watch a lot of Discovery Channels on TV when I grew up in the 90's. Some stuff I've learned back then it became gateway drug to tinker with electronics, which led to my current profession as programmer.
1) How much of this behavior is just a young child growing up and clashing with their parents? The author seems to blame the iPhone for their personality change, but it just seems to me that it coincides with a common period of rapid emotional and physical growth.
2) As others have pointed out - why not try and find a better medium between technology and creativity? Seems to me this is just the classic battle between tradition and technology.
So where is the data that quantifies the intellectual value of each single concept taught to children, on a concept by concept basis? And where is the data that the techniques used to teach any individual concept is worth the loss of that amount of childhood?
Seems like a lot of effort for any given lesson topic, but when you multiply any waste of time by the number of children and value of their childhood, it’s not so big.
Maybe give a teacher a child time budget...the amount of off-campus time you can take from a child’s life. Exceed that...and you can “buy” more time, but your contracted time would be extended without compensation as well. A slow kid may need more time, and additional support from another resource would be made available at no budget expense to the teacher.
But do your homework, kids...
I read books on my phone. I've probably read hundreds of thousands of pages, I've got a library that is a very respectable size on my phone. Is reading them a sign of addiction to my phone? Or is it the same as reading paper? Am I just using my phone as a tool?
I don't take pictures except to document things. I don't have any of those social media accounts people use to share photos or videos of themselves or whatever. I see women (and men) on the beach (or elsewhere) who's goal is to get a cute photo. I feel like they're wasting such a wonderful experience on a narcissistic persuit.
But I spend hours on sites like this one talking to other people. Talking to people I don't know, people I do know, people I only know online. Sometimes about stupid stuff, sometimes about interesting stuff. It's not something I use for passive entertainment really very often. If I'm pondering life, making bonds, questioning my own beliefs, is that as simple as a social media addiction? Is it constructive?
I know I am addicted to my phone and the internet in general. And it has detrimental effects on my life. But it has been very intellectually constructive for me. I have expanded my vocabulary quite a lot, I have learned to articulate my thoughts very well. I have learned to write code and about quantum particles and I've read research papers. I've talked to some very interesting people, even some very important people. So is it all bad?
I think the trick is to not make it your life. Go outside, dig your hands in the soil, grow something. Immerse yourself in the moment where what is going into your senses is not curated by you or someone else. I do a decent job of not touching my phone when I'm out there. But I'd say I haven't struck that balance quite yet, because I don't go out there enough. I used to go out there every day and get dirty. I need to do that again.
1. A child that is growing up.
2. A parent that gives in too much.
This lady needs to set rules for use, and then be firm with them. If you don't want your child to use a device for more than an hour a day, don't let them use it for nine.
All this child is doing is learning that their parent is a push over. You gotta be firm and push back.
She spends at least 3 hours a day writing on her laptop (she's on her 7th 150-page+ fantasy book), drawing and making comics on her ipad (taking full advantage of layers and other techniques), and animating on her phone ("Gacha" characters).
Even if this doesn't work in the short run, it's possible that after kids grow up, they would adopt healthier habits based on what they saw their parents doing when they were kids. I have seen similar things happen with eating habits, where kids initially rejected parental rules but as adults they adopted healthy habits that their parents modeled for them when they were growing up.
The problem is not the technology, the problem is as she mentions in passing bad parenting. If it wasn't an iPhone it would be "talking through the landline" (remember ALF's starting scene? it was an issue for us kids in the 80s/90s) Cable TV, or marijuana or any other addictive passtime.
You can't expect too much from kids creatively when they're subjected to such lifestyle. Some kids will either manage to be on top of things enough to have some extra energy in them, but not all.
I'm not dismissing the fact that smartphones and social media are extremely addictive, of course. That's a major problem. But the symptoms you are describing go beyond that.
- use screentime to understand the issues and set guidances or restrictions: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208982
- have open discussions about behavioural patterns in your kids to make them understand better what is good for them
To find the right balance between convenience, social pressures and the things that are actually good for oneself even if inconvenient is an everlasting struggle. This is best to be addressed early in life with good guidance.
The problem has nothing to do with an iPhone. It has 100% to do with bad parenting.
The author even acknowledges this, but I guess blaming the iPhone gets more clicks than "Poor parenting harms child".
Technology is designed to trick humans into engaging with it. They use us for profit.
It's asymmetric warfare. One or two parents, with jobs and responsibilities, against kids with peer pressure and billion dollar industries hawking them on, claws in their back and brain.
My daughter now knows not to expect to be able to Snapchat her friends or anyone else because she's never been able to. When she mentions that her friends all have it, we remind her that our house is not their house and we have our rules in place for a reason, which we are always willing to explain.
While I agree that screens and TV ARE very addicting, that doesn't mean that parents are powerless or that the majority of the problems brought up in this article are not the fault of the parents.
But anyway, he is right. For most parents is an uphill battle against tech and social media they're bound to lose due to mostly exhaustion.
Also, she CAN FaceTime. I would not consider Snapchat or TikTok to be "socializing with friends" for an 8 year old.
You know how we don't really get this whole social media thing the kids are into these days? That's because we lack those social skills. Just like how your parents' generation struggles with E-mail despite it being so simple, because you grew up with that.
It might not bother you that you're bad at Telegram or whatever because none of your peers use it either. But her peers do.
My point was that saying Snapchat or social media leads to greater social skills than what previous generations had is very hard for me to believe.
You can communicate via a method your parents can't because you used it extensively in your prime while they didn't. Your grandparents probably had the same issue with fax machines and your grandchildren will probably have the same problem with neural-messaging. Every generation thinks "but this time it's different" and every generation is wrong.
Likewise, your parents certainly don't have any problem conceptually understanding keyboards, letters, or addresses - they were perfectly comfortable with typewriters, letterheads, and postal codes. Dealing with nigerian princes and chain mail might involve the use of technology, but these are very much social skills.
As someone who only uses social media platforms that are mildly reskinned versions of 80s/90s message forums, I don't really know what the "BCC vs CC" of tiktok is, nor do I care. I have an excellent understanding of how tiktok works technologically, but I lack the particular social skills tiktok requires. Since my peers do not get it either, this has never been a problem for me, but I'm sure in a few years when my kids expect me to just know how to snapple into the televoid with them that I'll look like an idiot as I search for a reply button somehwere.
To your point, if a telegraph operator handed me a message I didn't understand, I could just say, "Hey, I don't understand this message. Can you explain it to me?" because that is social skills.
That I can have someone translate to and from Urdu for me does not mean I have the social skill required to communicate via Urdu. Likewise, that your parents can ask you whether something is spam or not doesn't mean they have the social skill required to communicate via email.
Wikipedia defines social skills as:
"A social skill is any competence facilitating interaction and communication with others where social rules and relations are created, communicated, and changed in verbal and nonverbal ways."
If the ability to effectively communicate via a medium doesn't satisfy that definition, what does? You are welcome to use a different definition, but that's what I am referring to by social skills.
Whether using your definition or another, my point still stands that social media does not lead to GREATER social skills than previous generations possessed.
Not being skilled in ALL aspects of socialization isn't the same thing as lacking social skills in general.
I never claimed that social media leads to objectively greater social skills, there's no reason why being able to write a great email is inherently superior to being able to write a great telegraph message. However, one skill is undeniably more useful in this day and age. It does not matter if you call it a social skill or a technological skill, the fact remains that there are people who know how to communicate effectively via social media, and those who don't, and just because you are comfortable in the latter category does not mean your daughter will be too.
Conversely, how many people have been scammed out of their life savings by nigerian princes? How many people developed a poor work life balance as they could now do work from home any time?
I'm not going to argue that smart phones have no issues, but everything that came before had issues too, and all were abandoned when something better came along.
Edit: If she's eight years old, then this seems like a more reasonable restriction. Disregard what I said previously. Eleven or twelve might be a better time to get Snapchat, especially since that's about the time that most kids get their first smartphones today anyway.
Phones certainly can be a problem, but the problem here has nothing to do with the phone.
It's not all their fault. They're fighting an asymmetric war. Millions of parents are.
No, this article was written by a narcissist who can't handle her little girl growing up and rather than dealing with it in a healthy way is instead raging against an inanimate object.
If covid happened in 1990, we'd all be on our land lines for 9 hours a day, and there would be nothing wrong with that either.
Now as I got older I realize a lot of it was just crap stuffed into our faces keeping us from discovering the real good artists out there. Those folks did have a point here and there. A lot of that music was pumped by the music industry purely to make money and similarly this addictive software is doing the same thing with amplified effects and more shamelessness.
You clearly feel that statement is false but don't provide any support for your strange point of view.
I mean... They're not. They're inanimate f----- objects. They've never maliciously set out to cause someone harm because they're inanimate f----- objects. They don't have an understanding of the concept of morals or ethics because they're inanimate f----- objects.
When I ingest them into my body -- that's when all hell breaks loose. They become a problem for me when I use them.
> Technology is designed to trick humans into engaging with it. They use us for profit.
Who is this mythical "they"?
Technology is designed to do many jobs. Some of them include gamification to "maximise engagement" or some other cringeworthy buzzword. Some of them are literally as simple as "turn the lights off at 10pm" or "wake me up at 10am".
It's how we, as a collective species, implement and use technology that's usually the problem.
"technology" itself is, again, an inanimate f----- object.
> It's asymmetric warfare. One or two parents, with jobs and responsibilities, against kids with peer pressure and billion dollar industries hawking them on, claws in their back and brain.
I think this is called life? Yes, lots of things all happen at the same time and there's alway societal pressures one way or another.
But calling it warfare is pretty extreme and may be something useful to reflect on.
In common usage of the english language, a thing can be a 'problem' without being sentient or unavoidable.
A pothole in the highway can be a problem if it's damaging people's cars - even if they could avoid it by driving more cautiously.
In the pothole analogy - it's like saying potholes are the reason for all these people's cars being damaged.
If no cars were driving over the pothole then the pothole wouldn't be a problem as no damage would ever be caused! It's an inanimate f----- object. It's just there.
It's the fact that people are driving cars on a road that has potholes that causes their cars to be damaged. It's some action that was taken that causes an effect to occur.
Then we get into the murky world of who is actually responsible and what is the solution. Which I don't have an answer for.
Of course there's some blame goes to the teacher, but hey.
I think your response is disingenuous.
Aside, I don't know what tech you're using but mines all been blinken-lights and conditioned-response dings (by default) for years.
There is certainly a conflict, OP might have been slowly melodramatic in their choice of words but just as casinos foster their whales, so too tech companies use the psychology of addiction against consumers.
- teacher
- video maker
- YouTube Devs
- companies
- "kids"
- individual
- school
- etc
YouTube (the drug) is just a series of instructions that make a slab of glass light up in a certain pattern and a speaker to oscillate in a particular fashion (depending on hardware).
It's an inanimate f----- object. It doesn't have "responsibilities".
That's the point I'm getting at. Why don't we, collectively, stop blaming the drugs/tech and start finding solutions to the actual problem?
It's easy to point the blame finger, it's harder to solve a problem.
The other parties want to maximise utility.
In your schoolwork example I can come up with four potential solutions off the top of my head:
- Speak to the teacher about concerns and ask about other ways of doing what is required
- Speak to parents and ask them to help with the homework
- Buddy up with a friend and watch the required video with a friend to avoid falling down a rabbit hole
- Use software like youtube-dl to download the video locally, to avoid temptation of watching another video
Then we come back full circle to the parent comment. It's not the drug's fault. It's not the phone's fault. It's not some software instruction's fault.
Blaming and ascribing fault is only helpful in identifying the problem. After that, the question becomes what can I do about it that will helpful for me today? What is my solution for how this affects me?
i.e. learning to develop personal responsibility.
Phones and youtube specifically are made to make money by gaining and keeping one's attention. They achieve it with tactics that trigger addiction. Some people become addicts, some not so much, but if you have a human brain you will feel the pull to abuse them.
In the case of phones and youtube the "mythical they" are the ones who profit from them and don't care about the effects of their tactics on the users. Maybe it is not warfare but it sure is asymmetric.
I'm saying that it's not the software's fault. In the immortal words of Philip K Dick: "dont blame the drug dude".
Blaming some faceless, mythical "they" gets everyone exactly nowhere. It doesn't solve anything.
There's a bigger question that everyone could be asking...
I gave my son an old computer a couple of years ago because he expressed a vague interest in learning to code like his daddy. That really didn't work out. But he discovered a great big world out there, and the computer was his window to it. And yes, the effects on his creativity were the same as for the child in the article.
So we tried, and partly succeeded, in limiting his time on it. But the truth is, there is a great deal for him to learn on YouTube, and we often do it together. His Minecraft creations are incredible. He maintains relationships with friends, including a distant cousin, through Discord and gaming. He sets up offline playdates the same way. These are not bad things.
Plus, with the pandemic, his schooling is all remote now. He has to log on in the morning and jump from Zoom class to class until early afternoon, and then all of his homework and reading is on Google Classroom. No, I can't limit access if we want him to attend school.
The problem here is not one of addiction and weak parenting. It's that screen time is genuinely valuable, and figuring out how to balance on-screen and off-screen activities isn't easy.
As a kid I had a computer and a few precious programming books. I could program, or... not much really. I guess I could have enjoyed WordPerfect.
As a parent now, I really need an answer for the remote education. I've tried keeping screens visible to parents. That really limits the parents, who have other things to deal with. Parental availability causes a massive reduction in time for online classes.
For reference in case somebody has ideas of a technical nature, mostly I'm dealing with Chromebooks going via DD-WRT, and I don't know much about either. There's also Android and Windows 10 and Ubuntu. Problems are web games, pointless videos, and reddit. Classes are at FLVS, EFSC, Khan Academy, and various textbook publishers like Pearson. Class video appears on all the popular video platforms, not counting the NSFW ones.
But with everything we know now, there’s no excuse. Parents are being irresponsible letting their child have a smart device.
A ten year old? Forget it.
My niece went through that and my sister caved in. I get it. I'm with you in principle but the reality is harder than that in my opinion.
Parenting isn't easy. But most rewarding things aren't.
Or is it? Maybe it's actually good parenting and they only perceive the outcome to be bad because of misguided ideas of what "good children" should be. Case in point: if it wasn't for my addiction to video games growing up and constantly finding ways around my parent's restrictions, I would never have become a software developer. That much is certain. Not only that, but I would have a horrid disdain for my parents much like my step-sister (now in her 30s) does for her mother (whom was always praised for being a "good parent") that restricted everything when she was growing up; so much so that she moved more than 7,000 miles away when she finally reached college age.
Somehow everyone thinks they're an expert on parenting and that there's only one way to parent a child and it's a one-size-fits-all situation. Frankly that's asinine. People come in all flavors and sizes so to speak. What you consider to be "good parenting" might be viewed as bad parenting by another person. In that sense, there's a subjective component to parenting. I've seen a lot of parenting elitists here on HN and I doubt many of you even have children let alone understand the complexities that comes with parenting them at various stages.
There is a multi-billion dollar concerted effort by the largest companies in the world to get an iron grip on the attention of children at a level of granularity never before seen - don't pretend like that isn't a novel cultural force that should be reckoned with.
Author seems to be struggling with the connected-kid culture around apps like Instagram and TikTok - which are transforming the school-based culture to something where to be popular, you have to be connected and posting. This is what needs to be controlled IMHO.
As many mention, there are MANY positive uses where the phone is a 100% better medium to teach or learn than old school books or otherwise.
With my kids, I focus on installing and limiting the games and videos to ones that I find productive and educational.
Our precocious angels have been transforming into sullen monsters at the onset of adolescence since the beginning of time. Do we really think they would have stayed precocious angels forever, if only they had never discovered comic books or rock'n'roll or TV or video games or whatever the current teenage vice happens to be?
Sure, there is good evidence that smartphones are more addictive than a lot of other pastimes and devices, but the fact that your daughter turned into a teenager isn't that.
I have 4 active mobile phones and I cannot understand the allure people who claim to be 'addicted' to phones have with them. I actually dread the time I spend on them, as the UX is so much worse when used to interface with Internet than a PC/Laptop in my opinion.
I also grew up at a time before smartphones but I grew up on the Internet using computers/laptops and admittedly spend a large time of my Life on both, for work and leisure, but I still cannot understand this seemingly prevalent disease that has afflicted so many. And I do have what some may deem an addictive personality, specifically to adrenaline and endorphins.
I think the common variable is the lack of time spent outside cities and their homes and have an almost pathological aversion to Nature. I can assure you that the latest Twitter beef seems incredibly insignificant after a 10 mile hike and watching the sunset in total silence, more should try it. Believe me I was there for its first incarnations and the forum 'flame wars,' of the 90s and early 2000s; they're only fun so many times until you grow out of them (ideally in your teens) and they all predictably start and end the same way. Its really not that interesting.
> Im not sure why the author thinks waiting until her daughter was 14
As for this, I agree with OP; I went to private school most of my life with many helicopter parents who swore their children were supposed prodigies only to seem them 'throw it all away' after they left the 8th grade and got their first taste of freedom they discovered members of the opposite sex, cars, status, drugs and booze and many ended up in continuation schools as they did it all in excess.
I'm personally glad I went to one night school class (as I always skipped morning classes) my freshman year of HS just to see what happens to people like that, it was massive learning experience but also a deterrent to not fall into those traps.
It also got me interested in computer networking as I was in a class sponsored by Cisco and my fascination with tech went beyond just soldering/hacking Playstation and Dreamcast consoles and ripping games to sell at school.
I think the bias and their views tends to lean toward their disappointment, but some people are just too easily susceptible and are often coerced by their parents into a certain path, and once they have any semblance of freedom they just rebel against it all. And I can understand that as I have a few cousins that ended up that way and we could all see it coming from a very young age.
To be honest the people who I found to be most successful in Life, beyond just financial and material wealth, and over all well adjusted were people whose parents just let them become who they wanted after their toddler years and then nurtured and supported their skills and talents that way. They had very healthy relationships with their families, often after turbulent teenage years, and were very open and free thinking about problem solving and World views.
Everyone is prone to peer pressure, especially in your early teens when you have no idea who you are and often are so quick to give into group think to fit in (we're biologically hardwired that way for survival), so I can see why some parents may want to wait until 14 or older. But I finis it hard to accept the consequences these devices are supposedly creating. Social Media 'balling' and the supposed depression that follows for so many seem insignificant when you grew up seeing what job your friend finished for Arab Shieks in Saudi Arabia and Dubai to a bunch Zonda Rs and Helicopters for a lark on a Tuesday morning. It was just funny, and kind of sad to think anyone with much money was that crass and had such poor taste.
I personally think its a mistake, but I understand the reasoning.
As, anecdotally, I mentioned I grew up on the Internet and I'm very grateful to my family that I was allowed the freedom and the opportunity to be subjected to all of those positive and negative influences in the early days of the Internet as it helped narrow down who and what it was that I really wanted in my Life.
Sheltering your children from the harsh realities of the World may seem like the right thing to do, I still recall the aftermath online in the Columbine shooting to this day, but it has many unintended consequences; the World is a very messy place and being a *young adult) and having never developed any coping mechanisms for stress or dealing with difficult situations as you get coaxed into the World is one of the saddest things I have ever encountered. I think this what you are really seeing on many campuses in University in the US and Canada (I started to see the rise of it as I left in 2009) and the toxic rise in cancel-culture online that's bled into the real World.
It's pushed by people who never learned to deal with the often very brutal realities, that the World is marred with conflict and filled with paradoxes and that its a constant battle for sanity and reason to prevail; but equally that it is your responsibility as a Human to navigate that and make the most of it and your Life. Because if you're a student and must have a job to pay for tuition, rent and bills you really aren't going to be getting riled up about the 'Sociological and degrading Epistemological implications' of not having gender-less/trans bathrooms on campus and need to riot and disrupt classes until the entire campus becomes a safe space in order to cope with those ramifications while you waste the next 6 years to write a dissertation on gender studies as a result of it.
We talk a lot about addiction and the tricks games play to make you want to come back every day. We talk a lot about safety and what predictors are looking for and what they say to try to sound like a friend. I hope these are good discussions and I hope they stay with my kids as they grow.
If I'd started at 14? They've already learned to tune me out by then.
I'm not saying that you said anything counter to this. I just think that apps which are hyper-tuned to captivate our every moment are a different beast.
"My daughter was a creative genius, then we bought her first neural lace."
and then we turn it into an almost-exclusively advertising tool designed to convert a human being into a money making machine.
It's one of the reasons I'm not enthusiastic about technology anymore. I see what we do with it. Every. Single. Time.
It makes me sad. All the lost potential.
Advertising in particular is a cancer that, over time, consumes every single communications medium.
I'm currently pursuing open-source tools to run home automation but it's slow-going. It's complex.
Meanwhile, she self-admittedly said she broke all her rules regarding the phone. Also her child grew up into a teenager. Kids don’t stay the same forever.
Spoiler alert, the phone didn't break your daughter. You and society did.
The major issue this brings to light is the complete ignorance around addiction. It is not caused by the substance or the activity, but rather other underlying issues (trauma, unmet needs). This mom sounds overbearing. This poor kid has probably been on the Ivy League track since preschool. School until 6:30PM, I can't imagine what is wrong.
Addiction problem? Find the needs that aren't being met. We have such a lack of knowledge about mental health, as a society, that most people don't even know where to start.
The end of the article brings no reprieve. The mom basically throws her hands in the air and we can only assume that she will double-down on her overbearing, unhelpful approach.
You can ban phones and vaping, but it won't do anything to address the underlying issues. Until we learn to proactively address mental health, it will only get worse. This article gives me zero hope.
Although it may not sound like it, I have a ton of compassion for the mom and the daughter. I used to have severe addiction issues, I was a real mess. I had to figure this stuff out by evaluating available information and (dis)proving it to my satisfaction through trial and error. With a lot of support, I managed to unfuck myself. I think I'm just frustrated with society in general. So many issues, so many simple ways to make headway on them, so little action or even understanding of the problem space. I can tell you one thing for sure, this lone autist is not going to save the world.
The parent in this article is struggling with too many things at the same time: kid becoming a teenager, tech, and lack of connection with your kid. Having kids and growing them to healthy human beings is super hard. I wouldn't blame the daughter's behavior to any single thing, it looks more like a combination of multiple issues. Hopefully they both can find a good path moving forward.
Our kids are very creative as a result and are constantly doing things and playing and have good social skills.
I don't think learning specific material in school is really that important but more so the learning how to learn combined with "creativity". We have far too many people in this world who are good at following instructions but what we really need in my opinion is people who are creative and can solve tough problems, not follow instructions.
Learning things along the way is easy if there is a solid creative base and persistence.
I suppose there can be some highly specialized areas where you need to be in school the whole way and get certifications etc (e.g. surgeon, law).
But in practicality, I want to have creative children who grow up to be multi-talented and have confidence that they can learn whatever they need to learn to solve problems of the modern world. This is why we send them to a Waldorf school.
I got my daughter to sit with me and watch "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix, and she still wouldn't leave her iphone alone. I could not believe it. Her exact behaviour is being acted out in front of us, and she's busy maintaining her streaks. I pause the show and "Really? Are you seriously using your phone right now?"
She's totally addicted to snap. so much so that she will even make little snap poses during a normal face-to-face conversation, which prompted me - the first time I saw it - to say "Did you just pose for a snap photo?" to which she embarrassingly agreed that she had.
Just as the author of the article related, my daughter cannot be without her phone and exhibits many of the same behaviours described in the article. Sounds like we've had the same arguments.
I don't think it's the phone itself that was the problem here, I think its allowing your teenager unfettered access to social media. TikTok, Facebook, IG, are not particularly healthy IMO. There is something to look at here with the loss of interest in reading and being creative. iPhones are in fact very good outlets for creativity, its just that children need limits within them just like anything else.
Parents should be engaged with what kids are actually doing on their devices and be able to set boundaries for their digital lives. I'm all for being creative, and I think digital tools can be a real boon to it. Making games, videos, digital art, programming etc. are all awesome, character building experiences. Scrolling through feeds for 9 hours a day watching celebrities do hand-jives and gossip, not as much..
SCHOOL! SCHOOL! A thousand times: school!
Of course a child who likes reading for leisure is going to do it less readily when they are told what books to read and forced to read them on someone else's schedule and analyze rather than enjoy them. I have no idea why people are blaming the phone and not school here.
Another toddler in my extended family just had his eyesight treated because of addiction to mobile phone.
There is a reason why tech billionaires are sending their kids to schools devoid of screens. The general horde who are making these billionaires even richer by buying their phones and seeing virtue in being able to afford it should introspect the damage they are doing to their kids.
"The modern devil is cheap dopamine." - @naval
When my parents had a say in my technology usage (amount of time spent in front of a screen, turning off the router at midnight, etc), I would want to find ways around it, such as jumping onto a neighbors hotspot, or saving up and secretly buying myself a second phone so they couldn't take it away. Sometimes I could get away with pulling an all-nighter on my phone.
Before I got into technology, it was books. I read for hours every day, and my parents complained that while reading was good, I was doing it in excess.
Once these limits relaxed, so did my desire to exceed them. Now I've moved out and live on my own, I find myself wanting to spend far less time on the computer.
Here's another perspective: are there socially well-adjusted adults who get sucked into it and ruin their lives? We're inclined to care about the kids most, but kids are resilient and continue to grow and adjust and change over the years. What about their parents? Are there adults who get sucked into social media addiction and it ruins their lives? If yes, how common would you say it is?
(I'm not trying to lead an answer here. I thought about it for a couple minutes and I haven't decided for myself.)
For a kid who blows off high school, where is the recovery? Many paths in life are more-or-less closed off.
You'd hope people were more educated or exposed to cool ideas but given the debate on the election and the most popular videos on youtube it doesn't seem to be that way.
Maybe its just a new normal and I'm old. I feel lucky the internet didn't exist when I was young.
Looks like 85% share in the US: http://www.pipersandler.com/2col.aspx?id=287&releaseid=18206
While its preatty simple to start coding on a Windoss/Linux PC, Android and iOS devices are not self hosting, you need to download an SDK, set device into developer mode, etc. - a barrier in itself. On iOS it's even more complicated if you wanted to write an app for your iPhone and share it with friends - expensive developer subscription & draconian app review!
So my worry is we will loose a generation of developers who would otherwise get to coding and sharing of their creation on PCs if their first and only device is a locked down cosume-only device like an iPhone.
I had a habit opening LinkedIn every now and then to glance at the content. Sometimes I would quickly close, sometimes I read a bit and close, sometimes longer.. anyway that's a distraction from whatever I am doing.
I did a small experiment recently on LinkedIn. I unfollowed everyone. My LinkedIn feed is empty. I don't open LinkedIn as much now, think about it.. it faded away.
I really like having no feed.
Then I wondered what Facebook would be like without a Feed.
Uhm... There was a period in my life where I had to work part time and go back to school and even that only took 11 hours per day including a 30 min commute both directions. This girl is doing this in her teenage years...
> Some days I get sad thinking about what happened to the little kid who used to corner visitors and make them go page-by-page through her art books.
It sounds to me like the daughter is doing the same thing she's always done, except now she has a new creative outlet -- TikTok.
So far that seems to work pretty well. But they are only single digit ages.
Is there any hard evidence that "those people" exist? Or is this just something people say?
Wat?
Perfection also harms creativity.
In fact there was a economic theorist who claimed that by introducing limitations in a system you also introduce entrepreneurship and innovation.
And now after saying all that I realize when comparisons are made of US to developing countries the same harbingers to creativity and innovation appear where if a situation in America can be resolved through a particular means, the lack of such means become an obstacle to the similar rise of developing countries.
I will admit that a lego kit with instructions is very different to a collection of lego parts and I would encourage every parent to buy buckets of assorted bits rather than kits that might end up staying on a shelf once assembled
Albert O. Hirschman
You gotta set those limits and stick to what you say. No matter how awkward or unpleasant it may seem. They'll eventually understand, and on some level, respect you more for being a disciplinarian. Sometimes kids act out though they secretly crave rules and boundaries.
That's worse
Once I picked up an Arduino however, I found my passion in programming and motion control, and went and got myself a degree.
My kids will consume unbounded screen time if given the chance. They will forget to sleep. They will ignore requests to hang out with friends. I don't know if they have ever willingly got off their tablets of their own volition, except sometimes to eat.
Now that the kids are schooling virtually, they spend their day staring at a laptop. When they get a break or schools over, what do they want? To stare at their tablets.
I try to regulate it. I'll tell them to get off and do something else. Twenty minutes later, they're back on. "Didn't I tell you to get off?" "Mom, said we could." "Did you tell her I told you to get off screen?" "No..." They are like junkies, pitting us against each other.
But it's not like I can just kick them off. Because some fraction of the time, they're playing Minecraft which I think is pretty creative, and they're playing with their friends. Given how little social interaction they can get right now, I'm loathe to minimize that. But as soon as their friends sign off, they switch to YouTube without saying anything. "Weren't you playing Minecraft with Alice?" "Oh, that was hours ago.".
Sure, if my wife and I were better more disciplined parents maybe this would be less of a problem. But it really sucks having to essentially live in a house that has a big bag of candy-coated heroin right next to the breakfast cereal and have to constantly be vigilant about not letting them have it. And then when someone points out "Hey, maybe we businesses shouldn't be able to leave bags of heroin candy in our houses," all you get is comments like the ones here judging people for letting their kids have it.
And, no, this isn't the same as when we played with our computers as kids any more than caffeine is the same as heroin. A difference in degree is still a difference, especially at this magnitude.
Parenting is hard enough as it is without having to fight a personal uphill battle against the trillion-dollar capitalist attention acquisition industry.
Everything I did had to be approved. They were always on my back, watching and controlling everything.
If I wanted to do something they did not approve, they were angry or mocked me. They forced me on activities I hated because THEY liked it. Never aknowledging my wishes or needs.
Never had privacy because they always had to check everything I was doing. Even closing my door made them angry. God save me if I dared to actually lock it, hell would loose on me.
When I asked for help, they never really bothered, they even laughed at me and made me feel like I should be ashamed to ask a question.
I lived under ridiculously strict, completely non-logical and arbitrary rules in everything in my life. Even daring to ask an explanation made them angry because I was defying their authority.
Want to get this nice book you like? Too bad, you don't have money. But mom does not think this book is interesting, so we'll get this other one instead. What, you already want to buy something else? We already bough you a book last week, you should be grateful.
They moved in the countryside because they are completely antisocial.
What, you want to visit a friend? I'll have to drive you, you are so annoying. We'll do this another time.
What, you want to go to disneyland? And a shopping center? Do you even know how much it costs and how many people are there?
What, you don't want to spend every sunday with us visiting completely uninteresting places with us? What's wrong with you, why don't you never get out of the house?!
You got punished again at school? [hell looses on me] I was sure your friends were not very frequentable, stop stop meeting them. Seriously, why didn't the teachers see that? Parents and teachers are so incompetent nowadays. Fortunately you have parents giving you a good education.
Computers were the only place where I could escape from this hell. I could have my own virtual world and they could not control it. I could subscribe to a PhpBB forum and talk with actual human beings about things I actually liked. I could choose any video game, movie and music and get it on Emule without asking permission.
This had and still have devastating consequences on my well-being.
You should be listening to what your child wants and teach her how to make her own smart choices. You should give her freedom, love and care, not arbitrary limits without even un explanation.
If I did not have my computer that my parents did not understood, if they had the power and knowledge to control and choose what I am allowed to do with it, I probably would have ended-up killing myself or something.
I have 3 daughters from my first marriage (ranging from 26 y/o to 2). When they were growing up I was a single father, and their phones went from brick-like nokias to Androids in the time it takes you to snap your fingers.
At the time I didn't give it much thought, and when I realized what was going on the harm was done. I really wish I'd knew better; I should had.
My youngest daughter is 7 now, from my 2nd marriage. And phones in particular and technology in general is something I give a lot of thought, and have discussed at length with my partner (Thankfully, we're on the same wavelength here).
She is also really creative; she was learning violin before lockdown, and while in lockdown besides her violin classes, she took singing and piano lessons (Obviously, at the level a 7 y/o can take then over Zoom / Meet).
We only let her watch around 1 hour of TV per day. Being strict here is a constant struggle, but we keep it more around that amount of time.
She also plays with the computer (Or phone, or tablet) "only" 1 hour a day, with the tablet or phone restricted to only weekends, and a particular game - Star Wars Battlefront - only 2 days a week.
Besides that, something that we haven't been able to manage - namely because it can go from 15 minutes a day to several hours - is phone usage for video calls. But I have to admit that I struggle here because I don't have a decided opinion regarding what to do here. She does sometimes hour + video calls with her grandmother on the mother side; they are very close, and due to COVID she haven't seen her since February - she lives 1500 Km away, with travel almost impossible in this country (Argentina) - when usually she would travel frequently, say every two months. Same happens with her friends that she hardly sees nowadays. and I gotta reckon that the video calls are usually on the creative side, for instance with a friend that lives in the same town as my MIL they would play using local toys similar to legos.
Both my wife and I dread the time when we'll eventually have to give her a phone,because just like TV and tablets and computers, it's going to be a constant struggle, made worst by the "but my friends do it / have it" line of reasoning.
As we do want to be prepared for this, what we decided is that, would the moment arrive, we are not going to give her "her phone". We are going to lend her a phone, that is not going to be hers, and she will be allowed to use under certain circumstances. And we would have the right to inspect that phone whenever we fell like it.
The reasoning here is that from our point of view, having a phone is not very different from having a car. If you would not give a 10 y/o a car, why would you give her a phone in an uncontrolled way?
Wish us luck.
You can stop it, but you won’t. The messages we give to girls now are awful. They are taught by the crowd to freely wield their sexual and social power instead of being taught to use it thoughtfully. This power is intoxicating and can only be tamed by strong values. They will be indoctrinated against your “outdated” parental authority. Their “heroes” will be criminals and bad women like Cardi B. If you really want to stop that, pull her out of the school she’s going to, find a ‘conservative’ school to send her to, and spend time teaching your values at home. You probably won’t do any of this. It’s not the phone, it’s the values and who is teaching them. And right now, that’s not you.
And I already don't like what I see, even though they are still only 5-10 years old: zero attention span, inability to be still and contemplative, useless hyperactivity, zero respect to parents yet enormous fear of police and other powers that be, lack of personal responsibility, whole life documented and filed in the cloud, total dependency on internet and electricity, so much that they are at the fringe of going insane or commiting a suicide when there's an outage...
And oh if it were only their parents who'll reap what they sow.
If this parent is frustrated at all they should, instead of being conceited about vicarious passions, be mournful their child has fallen prey to consumerist joys and will likely never develop a true adult passion for enriching experiences and pastimes. If my child asked me for something everyone has i would get her the things everyone DOESNT because when she is older she will appreciate the novelty of her personal childhood more than she will remember being just like everyone else. I would get my child a basic feature phone like a light phone or a flipphone, and i would get them an e-ink tablet and, yes, a customized device for watching television and youtube, possibly an android tablet heavily locked down. I would prohibit the use of apps like tiktok, snapchat, and instagram, all of which any in-touch millennial knows are the key platforms driving this soulless era of contact appreciation and gameified approval from others that really makes generation z teenagers look like a bunch of zombies, far more than we or our parents did at the same age.
To add salt to injury, the dance team at school she is part of encourages them to post on Facebook and Instagram. They have study groups on Facebook, Discord, Slack and even Instagram.
When I demand they use simple old style text messaging, she has friends with fancy phones but no SIM card and depend on Instagram messaging for everything.
I have given up after going through frustrating, helpless and endless hours of convincing.
Lack of ability to focus will be the serious limiting factor for innovation and creativity. I see it at work where you get engineers cannot persevere to solve hard problems. Agile has become them excuse to do some quick hack and throw it across the wall.
Strict parenting puts weights on your kids' backs. Eventually they'll snap in half.
Preventing your children from accessing social media is taking away their support network. If you're as strict as you say - and refusing to let your son take his phone out of the house is strict - he's certainly not going to trust you because _you don't trust him_. Your job as a parent is to let your kids grow, not to put these kids of boundaries on them. Let them look up to you for advice, not look to you every five minutes to see if what they're doing is allowed. If you were parenting well you wouldn't need to put more than a couple rules on your kids because they'd be good people anyway. They won't have those kids of rules on them as adults.
There are two people I know in real life with parents more strict than mine (and my parents aren't as strict as you); one of them has grown to develop anger issues and the other has such little life experience that it's sometimes hard to talk to them ("what's X?", "what's Y?").
Really? This comment just seems like ego-driven parental grandstanding rather than an actual attempt to understand how the first generation born into the era of smartphones and all-the-time internet access might have difficulty negotiating a healthy psyche against a multi-billions dollar oligarchy of companies intentionally seeking to monetize their attention.
Congratulations, your son doesn't seem addicted to their ipod. Cool anecdote; here's actual data about wether or not parental control of phone use has much of an affect on phone addiction (it doesn't): https://journals.lww.com/jan/fulltext/2018/04000/does_parent...
While there were definitely lax restrictions here, there are more factors here (societal pressure, both cultural and literal; the article indicated that study groups and other activities were coordinated solely on social media) that affect one's proneness to phone addiction.
In addition, in the article linked above (and others), parenting is not _the_ bellwether preventative in terms of phone addiction - there are psychological factors, environmental factors, etc.
In addition, there are societal variations across gender that are documented as having an affect on proneness to phone addiction.
Don't let your individual experience override the reality of the situation. This is an issue that is going to require extensive research and potentially regulation.