I never understand the 'no devices' thing. It seems wrongheaded. Not just from the 'an inability to be a sophisticated user of technology will be a gigantic d

I never understand the 'no devices' thing. It seems wrongheaded. Not just from the 'an inability to be a sophisticated user of technology will be a gigantic deficit to them in a multitude of ways' standpoint, but it seems like it's trying to take away a solution the child has found to a problem their parents created in the first place. Many parents complain that their child doesn't want to go outside and play, that they just stay inside on their tablet or in front of a videogame console. Most of those parents, if you ask them, fully intend to go WITH their child if they DO decide to go outside and "play". They intend to watch over their child, make sure they don't do anything too risky, make sure they don't use 'dirty words', and stand on hand to judge their every move. Kids gravitate to devices because they give the kid power. They are the only outlet in our society where THEY get to make things happen, THEY get to decide what to do next. In every single other arena of their life, those choices are taken away from them by people who think they know better (and people who do not consider control itself to be inherently harmful, which it is). I would imagine that if you give them other situations in which they are unobserved, unregulated, and empowered, the device use would fall off of its own accord. It's like the 'rat park' studies that upended addiction research in the past. Sure rats hit a bar to get cocaine until they die - if they're in a cage. But put them in an outdoor area with other rats with lots of things to do and they'll never get addicted in the first place. And if you put a rat that IS addicted in that environment, they wean themselves off of the drug naturally.