All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It was also normal to walk or cycle to school on our own. I really hope my children will be able to do the same.
It seemed most of the parents didn't pay attention to what we did, or at least condoned it. I know my one friends parent knew we got really into blowing stuff up, and just told us to "Be safe".
In the last 5-10 years I've seen a complete shift even within the families that were initially lax. My little brother and his friends got chewed out a while ago for dumpster diving a small LCD and other stuff. The "be safe" mom now watches the neighborhood for suspicious activity.
So, even though by all rights we should have had privileges restricted, that was never really an issue until highschool. All the younger kids I know are on a pretty tight leash, and they don't get into nearly the same level of mischief as we did.
My old neighborhood friends are probably some of the best people I know. We're all really close, and that's partly from all the stuff we did and still do. Taking risks with the support of a group softens failures, makes successes that more awesome, and pulls the group together.
I can say without a doubt that being able to explore and take those risks is why I understand my limits yet am always trying to push them. I almost completely agree with the article (except maybe the depression/anxiety) that free play is important, and in my opinion more valuable than early academic education.
/rant
One of the reasons I'm using almost all my free time to work on my bootstrapped startup ideas is to be able to move to a little city and still be able to do what I like while earning enough money, so that I could hopefully give my daughter that same freedom that I got - if my wife allows that!
- Only limited access to like-minded children (i.e., rather nerdy people who like to actually design and properly build tree houses rather than putting together some old sheets and then move into 'let's attack the tree hut' mode)
- Access to intellectually stimulating activities
- A proper library (maybe less important with the internet nowadays)
- Role models who aren't factory workers or construction workers (nothing wrong with them, but being exposed to a variety of role models is the key - I didn't really get the concept of an office job until I was in my early teens).
I have no desire to move back to such an environment, and even less desire to let my daughter grow up in it. Not saying that cities are perfect either, just that I don't think the advantages of villages outweigh the disadvantages.
It's true that it is more difficult to find like-minded friends and more intellectually stimulating activities there, but I think that that would only become a concern when you're over 13 or something, and there's a lot of time for that. Big libraries (which I missed back in the day) wouldn't be a problem today, and as for role models, that wouldn't be a problem in that kind of city I'm talking about.
Of course, there is no perfect choice, but in my opinion a small city would be the best compromise. Then, only time will tell...
In Italy, places like Padova, Pavia and Pisa - back in the US, places like Eugene, Oregon or Boulder, Colorado (although I've never been there) may qualify.
I also recall where rensellaer poly is to be a nice little town next to the university.
I can't think of many towns in Texas that offer a small university town without being so spread out parents don't have to worry about cars though.
Boulder is also really nice near campus (getting sprawlish outside it), mountain hikes are a bike ride away.
There was also the hot summer, midday trek when we got lost in the hills. Well, we found out the way back at last, but it could have been serious :)
I'm not mentioning the bad habit to illegally ( 12 y. o. aren't supposed to) drive regularly motorcycles without helmets. Fortunately nobody ever got seriously hurt.
I have never been a group person all my life, I am mostly alone, especially since I moved to another country and city and it is hard for me to relate to other people or feel comfortable in a crowd or really enjoy going to a pub or going out. I am suffering from (at times severe) depression and anxiety.
I, along with my younger bro & sis and friends, had to be back in by dark and rarely had to say where we were going. sometimes we'd go off on bike rides well out of the city or even take a small boat we found and row/motor it around the rivers(tamar/tavy) (no safety equipment, repaired it ourselves, hilariously overloaded). fires, explosions, trespass, "base"/bunker/dam building, tree-climbing, ragging my donated scrambler in wasteland, etc were all regular activities.
Now I see my other bro and sis (~10yrs younger than I) and they always have homework or are on their laptops. my youngest brother used to go with us sometimes when he was ~4 so he knows what "play" is but none of his friends want or are allowed to join him.
I've always wondered if there is any factual underpinning that would license such thinking from mothers. I am not sure the threats to children (besides road traffic) have risen so strongly over the last decades, but media coverage may have, creating the impression that the world has become a (more) dangerous place for kids.
However, the change over recent year is not as important as the actual current status, i.e., the answer to a question like: "If you allow your kid to play outdoors, what is the likelihood that it will suffer harm from any of the mentioned sources." (It doesn't matter if it was 50% percent less 50 years ago, if it's still very low today.)
Police statistics should provide the data for an initial estimation of such numbers, which of course would have to be conditioned further, e.g., for neighborhood etc.
But of course, people don't always behave rationally, so having such information - even if it should suggest that the danger is not higher than it was during their own childhood - is likely to have zero impact on parents.
But I'm convinced that the threat from "predators" is minimal, yet I still find it really hard to let my kids just go out and play. Luckily both myself and next door have decent sized gardens, so they get to run around outside all they want. But it's not the same as when I used to go out on my bike all day and not return home till I was hungry.
Going out as a kid in the 70s and 80s, I usually had to tell someone what friend's house I'd be at, and was given times (either 'dinner' or '8pm' usually) to be home at, but usually had pretty free reign. I normally stayed within a mile or so of the house, but there were plenty of places to go - small arcades, shops, friends, school playgrounds, etc. My parents had no way of knowing if I was at place X, Y or Z, unless I called home. No cell phones, sms, etc. But we managed just fine.
Even though crime is statistically lower than it's ever been people feel less safe because of media induced paranoia.
"The researchers found that compared to 1981, children in 1997 spent less time in play and had less free time. They spent [...] 168 percent more time shopping with parents."
Wow. We're teaching our children to be good little consumers, but failing them in the areas that really matter.
Wake up, unplug your TV, and stop going to the mall. For the children.
Children should be adults in training. Over the last 2 decades or so that has become less and less true.
Knowing how to work (i.e. be proactive in their survival) allows kids to feel in control of their life. I equate ability to work with cognitive discipline, and note that depression is easy to succumb to when one is too weak for a change of attitude.
I propose such potential sources of work-shyness as: the illusory sense of accomplishment from video games; hedonism as default response to any emotional problem; escape into internet culture does not condition one's mind for what matters for survival in the real world; internet porn; last but not least, parents may not be able to communicate the appropriate wisdom. In short, too many stupefying distractions of the fast food variety, not enough structure.
It is better for kids to learn to discipline themselves as early on as possible, since it is harder to unlearn old habits as they grow older. It could make the difference between an ADHD diagnosis or not :)
Most importantly, work is a source of happiness, too.
And children are only allowed to that kinds of work.
When I was a child, my only agenda was that I wanted everybody around to stop bothering me so I would do what I wanted (and I wanted to read books and tinker with my PC).
I hated school work (which according to the article grew 145 percent), I hated school, I still loathe it and I would try and support anyone who argues its questionability, like the parent article.
(Happily for me I mostly got what I wanted, but I wasn't an american kid)
Children should be doing what they want, left mostly to themselves.
And by the way, you say ADHD as if it was something bad.
ADHD is normal in a school setting, it's one of the most boring institutions on the planet, on par with a city jail.
I met the criteria for ADHD. However, when you have to give children the same class of drugs that cause people to find credit fraud interesting you know something is wrong with the school system and not the kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextroamphetamine This is what they had my friend on in Grade 7. Insanity.
"A meth user can stay awake for several days at a time, and is often content to perform repetitive tasks -- even having the patience to stitch together shredded documents."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4460349/ns/technology_and_scienc...
I don't think I will be able to afford alternative schools, although I will try.
Also, you assume that free playtime by children will automatically be spent on useless activities. While I am not convinced that there is nothing to learn from video games, I think kids will choose projects by themselves, and they will learn how to execute on their ideas.
I know a 6th-grade teacher who complains about kids not having any time for homework because they participate in non-school sports. This is someone who coaches football/wrestling and has had a least one child play in the majors. The level of emphasis put on activities like these is ridiculous.
>"Individuals suffering from anxiety disorders describe losing emotional control as one of their greatest fears. They are afraid of their own fear, and therefore small degrees of fear generated by mildly threatening situations lead to high degrees of fear generated by the person's fear of losing control."
This is absolutely correct.
Finally, I wonder how much parental social lives relate to the issue of isolation. My parents did not have any local friends when I was growing up and I feel this may have contributed to my social isolation during that time.
edit:grammar
So in both cases it seems that there's not enough time for both school work and sports. But the focus of what is considered more important seems to be different between the two countries.
From your post:
This shouldn't just include the amount of time given to this activity but should even encompass the toys that we give kids.
One word: Legos. My sister gave my oldest son a set of Duplos for his second birthday, and thus Lego mania was born in our household. We have more than 10,000 Lego pieces in our house from dozens of separately bought Lego sets, and all four of my children love to spend time putting Lego pieces together, especially when the weather doesn't make playing outside feasible, and they also like to use the Lego constructions as characters in fantasy play with one another. Recently my daughter, our youngest child, has been building elaborate Zometool
towers, and those are great fun for the kids too. I much prefer open-ended toys to toys that have too much structure built in.
And you'd be surprised at how much fun 3-4 years old can have with laundry baskets and small blankets. Throw in a few medium-sized cardboard boxes from U-haul and it's pandemonium.
"Log, by Blammo"
my reaction to the article: no shit! there have been books written on this subject (i.e. Last Child in the Woods). we expect children to behave like adults starting at about age 8 in the U.S. we over schedule them and expect collegiate level study discipline at about age 11.
we have built an infrastructure that serves only to make people fatter and more sedentary, moreover, we as technologists have facilitated, through such shit-shows as facebook and my_space before it, the continued decline in actual physical activity pursued by kids.
there's soo much culpability to go around on this topic that its hard to even know where to begin. as a parent i am continually disgusted by how we as adults abuse and destroy the childhood phase of life.
and we wonder why kids are so fucked these days and our obesity rates are growing in near logarithmic(ok, maybe not quite logarithmic...) fashion...
rant off----------
I never really learned how to play. It's a significant challenge to get myself off the computer and out relaxing, exploring, and enjoying free time.
Unless coding is stressful for you I don't see how that's different than kids playing games outside. Though, it seems you implied that being on a computer was not relaxing. In that case I'm straight wrong.
http://freakonomicsradio.com/hour-long-special-an-economists...
It made many of the same points.
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wpcontent/uploads/2008/...
Democratic Schooling: What happens to young people who have charge of their own education?
The paper compares the post-school accomplishments of two groups of students post-school.
I'm sure it depends on where you live. In my neighborhood, kids are out playing all the time. I don't know where the study participants lived, but given that the researcher was based out of Boston College, I wonder whether this is one of those East Coast - West Coast lifestyle differences.
The "career game", which now begins in childhood, is a war of attrition. Look at the people running major, Fortune 500 companies? Are they the best and the brightest? Are they our society's most talented people or its most capable leaders? Fuck no, obviously not. They're the ones who didn't develop chronic puking disorders, severe panic attacks, lifelong back problems, RSIs and socially crippling misanthropy after being thrown into a "pay-your-dues" war of attrition with hundreds of other idiots and surviving the longest in it. That's how they got where they are-- not leadership, not creativity, not any kind of talent whatsoever, but making it through more years of soul-raping corporate grunt work than their competitors could survive.
We're now in a state where the constant warfare begins in fucking preschool. This is what we get. The only way out is to radically reshape society, and the problem is that there are people currently in positions of great power who will defend the status quo with everything they've got. Their problem, not ours.
I'm going to anger people by saying this, but New York (although it's still one of the best places to live in the US) is essentially a Southern city at this point. What's the first thing you do every month? Pay an enormous rent check to someone who's had real estate in the family for over 100 years. What's the first thing you are asked in "casual" conversation? "What do you do?" Or, "What is your position in society?" And "those who matter" still go to cotillions and keep to themselves and shoot quail in the Hamptons.
What do I mean by the South winning, culturally speaking? I mean that this is a society run according to position, authority, and entrenchment rather than the talent and courage to have and share the right ideas. The country is run by private-sector bureaucrats who've discovered ways to capture value generated from the labor of others.
We're not a "really fucked up species". Humans are not naturally good or evil. They're naturally unskilled-- ignorant, deluded, and often incompetent, but not evil. The purpose of civilization is to maintain the knowledge that helps people do the right thing. Unfortunately, societies become corrupt rapidly and develop elites that have defined themselves by doing the wrong thing, and then those wrong things begin to define the social tone and corruption sets in. Civilization is a storehouse of knowledge that helps people figure out what the right thing to do is, but societies are incentive systems that usually encourage doing the wrong thing.
I don't really know enough to say any meaningful about promotion in a large company, but a simple counter example to your entire rant is that you can get ahead in those companies by politicking. You don't have to work extra hard, or push yourself, just know the right people and push the right buttons to get the promotion.
Speak for yourself. For me, it's more stressful to play politics and schmooze than it is to drop in and do 12 straight hours of solid work. Real work is fun. Greasing palms is a pain in the ass.
Also, it's true that these people don't "push themselves" intellectually, but you definitely have to work very hard to create the appearances of effort, performance, and (most importantly by far) shared suffering.
For education, we have free schooling for the first 18 years of life, an extensive community college system, and, if you live in the right state, fantastic public higher education. You can educate yourself through a BA for less than the price of a car if you're willing to consistently work hard for grades.
The private sector is similar. Those who have proven themselves exceptional rise in the ranks. Looking at Fortune 500 company CEOs, yes, there exist executives who are not the "best and brightest," but "there exist" does not mean "all are". By and large, I would say that most of the CEOs and their executive teams are working toward what they believe to be the best path forward for their company. As publicly-traded companies, those who hold stock in those companies act as a check on incompetent management, and companies incompetently managed have a tendency to be heavily penalized. See HP recently, and its stock price.
Your rant takes a very harsh and dismissive tone towards "American society" and its political nature is not what should be discussed on Hacker News. I don't think your harsh tone, your evidence-free assertions or your conclusion ("The only way out is to radically reshape society") have a place here. Please go back to the #OccupyWallSt rallies.