4 ms·

Have two kids, 14/12. They've grown up as fully connected kids, have always had access to their own devices, never more than a year or two behind the Big Now. W

Have two kids, 14/12. They've grown up as fully connected kids, have always had access to their own devices, never more than a year or two behind the Big Now. We have never imposed "limits for the sake of limits" on their screen time. I find the idea preposterous, frankly. We have no issue connecting with them, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc. If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million miles from the nearest wireless cloud. A lot of discussion around this issue is just tired rehashing of the same complaints every generation over the past 150 years has said about the incoming generation. Some of y'all in here already sound like grandparents, lol.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>We have no issue connecting with them, or // It's good that all people are exactly the same as you and your kids and that this will therefore work for everyone, isn't it. /s
- SunnyCanuck 9y ago
  I didn't make any such claim. If you'd like to respond to what was actually written, feel free. :)
  - shakna 9y ago
    > If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million miles from the nearest wireless cloud. It seems to me, you did make that claim.
    - robertlagrant 9y ago
      They were obviously implying that, yes. Then just backpedalling for some strange reason.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Sorry if the pith obscured the substantive point: You said you had no problems with connecting with your children, the point is that there are varying characters and that other children may have problems with connecting that are exacerbated by device usage. I know I have those sorts of problems as an adult and suspect at least one of my kids has similar issues. Your comment seemed dismissive of the possibility of a problem, and of the possibility of that problem being exacerbated by screentime/phone use/tablet use. Ergo my interjection. As an analogy, that I think is apposite, some people can smoke tobacco and not get addicted, for others it becomes a consuming need; I think electronic interactions can be like this for many people. I get tetchy (irritable) when I don't have a drink for a few days, a similar tetchiness takes me when I don't get my fix of phone time. Screens can provide a very easy way to avoid social interaction, something which is a challenge for me. Stick this all together and you have problems connecting with people that are exacerbated by increased screentime; I do have the agency to avoid getting completely absorbed by devices but I also exercise that agency on behalf of my kids as I believe they have not (as pre-teens) developed the ability for themselves.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  As I read it, you missed the point. Here's my reading: Are the digital devices just current rationalization for connective breaks that happen in family settings? Yes, some families have trouble connecting. No one is arguing that. But would they have trouble connecting even without the presence of these devices? My opinion is that disconnects are typically about joint values, interests, and expectations. Or, more appropriately, lack thereof. Yes, there's the possibility that the parents don't understand digital devices and therefore are limited in joining the party. But, again my opinion, if it wasn't digital devices, it would be some other thing that was new or foreign to the parents. And so perhaps the real failure is the willingness of the parents to engage at the children's level. It also might represent a lack of shared values and expectations in connecting in the first place.
drdeadringer 9y ago
> the Big Now I've tried looking this up and received a quite diverse collection of results. What is this?
- bootloop 9y ago
  When your 8 year old plays Candy Crush on his Samsung S8 he lives the Big Now. I guess.
bonaldi 9y ago
> I find the idea preposterous, frankly. This seems extreme. The idea generally talked about is "we're not yet sure about the effects of prolonged phone use on development of social skills and mental health, and related impacts on physical development. What's more, we know that adults are finding themselves with hard-to-break negative habits surrounding their phone use. And we know that app companies are A/B testing to the nth degree in an attempt to drive engagement ever higher. So caution is indicated here, even if we don't yet know precisely how much is warranted" That doesn't seem in the least "preposterous" to me. And your sample size is tiny, and you don't have a control group: who knows what your family dynamic would be like if your kids had boundaries around their usage of devices? As others have said, this is fundamentally different to the moral panics of the past. Back then, it was "kids are doing X, which I didn't do, and X is therefore bad." Now it is vastly more "I am realising that Y is bad for me, and I'm a full-grown adult. Perhaps I shouldn't let my kids run free with Y either". This isn't "novels are corrupting our girls", it's much closer to "hang on, this smoking business may not actually be improving our health and vitality, and we might consider only letting little Jimmy have 20 a day. Yes, yes, even though we have no issue running in the park with him, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc"

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

>We have no issue connecting with them, or // It's good that all people are exactly the same as you and your kids and that this will therefore work for everyone, isn't it. /s

SunnyCanuck 9y ago
I didn't make any such claim. If you'd like to respond to what was actually written, feel free. :)
- shakna 9y ago
  > If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million miles from the nearest wireless cloud. It seems to me, you did make that claim.
  - robertlagrant 9y ago
    They were obviously implying that, yes. Then just backpedalling for some strange reason.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Sorry if the pith obscured the substantive point: You said you had no problems with connecting with your children, the point is that there are varying characters and that other children may have problems with connecting that are exacerbated by device usage. I know I have those sorts of problems as an adult and suspect at least one of my kids has similar issues. Your comment seemed dismissive of the possibility of a problem, and of the possibility of that problem being exacerbated by screentime/phone use/tablet use. Ergo my interjection. As an analogy, that I think is apposite, some people can smoke tobacco and not get addicted, for others it becomes a consuming need; I think electronic interactions can be like this for many people. I get tetchy (irritable) when I don't have a drink for a few days, a similar tetchiness takes me when I don't get my fix of phone time. Screens can provide a very easy way to avoid social interaction, something which is a challenge for me. Stick this all together and you have problems connecting with people that are exacerbated by increased screentime; I do have the agency to avoid getting completely absorbed by devices but I also exercise that agency on behalf of my kids as I believe they have not (as pre-teens) developed the ability for themselves.
jdmichal 9y ago
As I read it, you missed the point. Here's my reading: Are the digital devices just current rationalization for connective breaks that happen in family settings? Yes, some families have trouble connecting. No one is arguing that. But would they have trouble connecting even without the presence of these devices? My opinion is that disconnects are typically about joint values, interests, and expectations. Or, more appropriately, lack thereof. Yes, there's the possibility that the parents don't understand digital devices and therefore are limited in joining the party. But, again my opinion, if it wasn't digital devices, it would be some other thing that was new or foreign to the parents. And so perhaps the real failure is the willingness of the parents to engage at the children's level. It also might represent a lack of shared values and expectations in connecting in the first place.

drdeadringer 9y ago

> the Big Now I've tried looking this up and received a quite diverse collection of results. What is this?

bootloop 9y ago
When your 8 year old plays Candy Crush on his Samsung S8 he lives the Big Now. I guess.

bonaldi 9y ago

> I find the idea preposterous, frankly. This seems extreme. The idea generally talked about is "we're not yet sure about the effects of prolonged phone use on development of social skills and mental health, and related impacts on physical development. What's more, we know that adults are finding themselves with hard-to-break negative habits surrounding their phone use. And we know that app companies are A/B testing to the nth degree in an attempt to drive engagement ever higher. So caution is indicated here, even if we don't yet know precisely how much is warranted" That doesn't seem in the least "preposterous" to me. And your sample size is tiny, and you don't have a control group: who knows what your family dynamic would be like if your kids had boundaries around their usage of devices? As others have said, this is fundamentally different to the moral panics of the past. Back then, it was "kids are doing X, which I didn't do, and X is therefore bad." Now it is vastly more "I am realising that Y is bad for me, and I'm a full-grown adult. Perhaps I shouldn't let my kids run free with Y either". This isn't "novels are corrupting our girls", it's much closer to "hang on, this smoking business may not actually be improving our health and vitality, and we might consider only letting little Jimmy have 20 a day. Yes, yes, even though we have no issue running in the park with him, or doing family things together, or etc etc etc"