5 ms·

> For starters, he says, ask your kid this question: 'What would you do if you didn't have to do anything else?' In the western world the answer to that questi

> For starters, he says, ask your kid this question: 'What would you do if you didn't have to do anything else?' In the western world the answer to that question is often some addictive activity such as playing video games, or watching videos on youtube.

Strive 8y ago
The question confuses me right away because most Americans are not keeping their kids' schedules full all the time. "Go play, I have to work/cook/shop/whatever." Kids are doing "what they would do if they don't have to do anything else," because they don't have to do anything else. Maybe the question is more about the behavior of the adult than the child? Parents need to enable their children's interests. Maybe your child really wants to roller skate but can't do it unless you enable them by watching them, because it's a dangerous neighborhood. It's your responsibility to foster their interest by making the time to help them. Or maybe the idea is that parents sometimes don't actually know the interests of their children? So the point of the question is not to open time in the kid's schedule for their activity (because they're doing that activity already). It's to make the parent more aware of what the activity is?
- electricEmu 8y ago
  It was my understanding purposely filling your child's schedule is a mixed bag. It could help a child or hurt them significantly. That kind of filled schedule adds stress and removes exploration time. I never would have been a programmer if my parents filled my schedule with football, like they wanted to.
- thedudemabry 8y ago
  I would second this. Enabling your child's interests takes observation and work. One of the more surprising things I've discovered as a recent parent is how prominent tablets are as a distraction or learning tool. I'm no exception. We bought our son a cheap, bulletproof Amazon Fire tablet, ratcheted the parental controls to the roof, and let him watch videos or play with it when he requests it (and use it as a helpful distraction when he gets bored in restaurants.) I'm split on how to approach this. On one hand, I would have done anything to have this magical infinite learning device when I found myself bored as a child, but I also recognize that the content on it is more often than not designed for addiction. Our son is not yet old enough to understand even rough warnings of addictive behaviors, so we're kind of watch-and-waiting. We limit screen time per day, but as he gets older, and gets access to a web browser, I'm not sure how I feel about those limits in relation to traditional information sources.
tonyarkles 8y ago
> In the western world the answer to that question is often some addictive activity such as playing video games, watching videos on youtube or something similar. I was a relatively free-range child. I had a bike, I had a pocket full of quarters to call home if I needed to, and if I wanted to I could stay home and play video games (we had an NES, followed by a SNES, but not that many games). What did I do? I rode my bike to the library and took out books from the programming section. The first ones were video-game inspired. You could get the source code of a game in a book and type it into the Vic-20. I was obsessive with it. Once I'd gone through all of the game-books they had, I started making my own. And then we got a used XT and it. was. on. Quickly went from QBasic to a C compiler (PowerC, if I recall). Around '97 or so we got a Pentium 1 and I heard about this thing called "gcc" which was apparently a better C compiler, so I ended up installing Linux. And here we are, 20 years later and I've turned all of that into a great career. At the time, my parents were pretty dismayed that I wasn't into baseball, or soccer, or basketball, or whatever... But they did a great job at keeping things balanced. Don't want to play sports? That's ok, but we've got to go take the dog for a walk. I fully accept that a lot of the computer-related activities are significantly more addictive now (and passive) than they were back then. If I wanted a new game, I had to ride my bike to the library! But... I'm always leery of people who suggest heavily restricting screen time just because it's screen time. If that's the direction someone's going, they might just need a little nudge to make it a more productive learning experience.
- dugditches 8y ago
  The screens of your past aren't close to the ones of today.
- jpalomaki 8y ago
  Maybe it was different back then. Most games were simpler and many of us did not have endless collection of games. It was much easier to get bored playing with computer. Now the app stores are filled with free, addictive stuff. And that’s just games.
- nickserv 8y ago
  There's a big difference in active and passive screen time. I got into computers in the early 90s and back then there was always a certain hands on aspect to it. From installing RAM to clearing drive space or making custom boot disks... Games actually thought me a lot! Now... Not so much. Much of the hardware is locked, nevermind the software. So kids get to thinking they can't make anything, that it's a primarily passive experience. To me, that's the big problem, to become passionate about passiveness. For the record my 5 year old runs KDE on a fanless laptop. It's been great for him to learn letters at school
rconti 8y ago
You mean, the things parents allow their kids to do in lieu of being able to actually go outside and do things on their own, without having to ask a parent to taxi them around or something?
tootie 8y ago
Even without screens, if you asked me as a kid it would be to play with toys, draw or maybe go play baseball with my friends. Conversely, my daughter has unfettered screen time on multiple devices with an A+ selection of games and videos, but she proactively started folding laundry this morning for no reason and then asked to practice coding with me. Why? Same reason as the Mayan kids. Genetics. And, just to be pedantic because I hate the term, the Yucatan is in the Western World.
s-shellfish 8y ago
Do we have to call it an addiction? A video game is an immersive experience that allows an individual to effectively sync into a state of flow detached from reality. If reality is chaotic and stressful and reinforces that sentiment from all directions to yield those internal feelings of agony, it seems obvious that anything that can alleviate such agony would be immediately ran to. Better to be addicted to video games than heroin, right? At least video games can teach modular reasoning. And yes, extreme cases of video game addiction have led to death, but a kid having a daily hobby of playing video games after school is not the same thing.
- rimliu 8y ago
  > Better to be addicted to video games than heroin, right? Only in terms of your physical health. Otherwise iirc addiction is defined as having negative effect on your life (work, social, personal) so it is as bad. > At least video games can teach modular reasoning. Which will be used only for games, because you are not interested in anything else?
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    > Which will be used only for games, because you are not interested in anything else? Or programming, having a job you have passion for and are good at, being able to produce work people see value in, sustaining yourself, you know, not living in a gutter and stuff dying of a heroin overdose? > Only in terms of your physical health. Otherwise iirc addiction is defined as having negative effect on your life (work, social, personal) so it is as bad. Well, if you love video games and everyone around you hates video games, and thinks video games are as bad as heroin, I could see how that could have a negative effect on your work, social, and personal life.
    - rimliu 8y ago
      I am not talking about liking games and gaming. I am talking about addiction.
      - 8y ago

Strive 8y ago

The question confuses me right away because most Americans are not keeping their kids' schedules full all the time. "Go play, I have to work/cook/shop/whatever." Kids are doing "what they would do if they don't have to do anything else," because they don't have to do anything else. Maybe the question is more about the behavior of the adult than the child? Parents need to enable their children's interests. Maybe your child really wants to roller skate but can't do it unless you enable them by watching them, because it's a dangerous neighborhood. It's your responsibility to foster their interest by making the time to help them. Or maybe the idea is that parents sometimes don't actually know the interests of their children? So the point of the question is not to open time in the kid's schedule for their activity (because they're doing that activity already). It's to make the parent more aware of what the activity is?

electricEmu 8y ago
It was my understanding purposely filling your child's schedule is a mixed bag. It could help a child or hurt them significantly. That kind of filled schedule adds stress and removes exploration time. I never would have been a programmer if my parents filled my schedule with football, like they wanted to.
thedudemabry 8y ago
I would second this. Enabling your child's interests takes observation and work. One of the more surprising things I've discovered as a recent parent is how prominent tablets are as a distraction or learning tool. I'm no exception. We bought our son a cheap, bulletproof Amazon Fire tablet, ratcheted the parental controls to the roof, and let him watch videos or play with it when he requests it (and use it as a helpful distraction when he gets bored in restaurants.) I'm split on how to approach this. On one hand, I would have done anything to have this magical infinite learning device when I found myself bored as a child, but I also recognize that the content on it is more often than not designed for addiction. Our son is not yet old enough to understand even rough warnings of addictive behaviors, so we're kind of watch-and-waiting. We limit screen time per day, but as he gets older, and gets access to a web browser, I'm not sure how I feel about those limits in relation to traditional information sources.

tonyarkles 8y ago

> In the western world the answer to that question is often some addictive activity such as playing video games, watching videos on youtube or something similar. I was a relatively free-range child. I had a bike, I had a pocket full of quarters to call home if I needed to, and if I wanted to I could stay home and play video games (we had an NES, followed by a SNES, but not that many games). What did I do? I rode my bike to the library and took out books from the programming section. The first ones were video-game inspired. You could get the source code of a game in a book and type it into the Vic-20. I was obsessive with it. Once I'd gone through all of the game-books they had, I started making my own. And then we got a used XT and it. was. on. Quickly went from QBasic to a C compiler (PowerC, if I recall). Around '97 or so we got a Pentium 1 and I heard about this thing called "gcc" which was apparently a better C compiler, so I ended up installing Linux. And here we are, 20 years later and I've turned all of that into a great career. At the time, my parents were pretty dismayed that I wasn't into baseball, or soccer, or basketball, or whatever... But they did a great job at keeping things balanced. Don't want to play sports? That's ok, but we've got to go take the dog for a walk. I fully accept that a lot of the computer-related activities are significantly more addictive now (and passive) than they were back then. If I wanted a new game, I had to ride my bike to the library! But... I'm always leery of people who suggest heavily restricting screen time just because it's screen time. If that's the direction someone's going, they might just need a little nudge to make it a more productive learning experience.

dugditches 8y ago
The screens of your past aren't close to the ones of today.
jpalomaki 8y ago
Maybe it was different back then. Most games were simpler and many of us did not have endless collection of games. It was much easier to get bored playing with computer. Now the app stores are filled with free, addictive stuff. And that’s just games.
nickserv 8y ago
There's a big difference in active and passive screen time. I got into computers in the early 90s and back then there was always a certain hands on aspect to it. From installing RAM to clearing drive space or making custom boot disks... Games actually thought me a lot! Now... Not so much. Much of the hardware is locked, nevermind the software. So kids get to thinking they can't make anything, that it's a primarily passive experience. To me, that's the big problem, to become passionate about passiveness. For the record my 5 year old runs KDE on a fanless laptop. It's been great for him to learn letters at school

rconti 8y ago

You mean, the things parents allow their kids to do in lieu of being able to actually go outside and do things on their own, without having to ask a parent to taxi them around or something?

tootie 8y ago

Even without screens, if you asked me as a kid it would be to play with toys, draw or maybe go play baseball with my friends. Conversely, my daughter has unfettered screen time on multiple devices with an A+ selection of games and videos, but she proactively started folding laundry this morning for no reason and then asked to practice coding with me. Why? Same reason as the Mayan kids. Genetics. And, just to be pedantic because I hate the term, the Yucatan is in the Western World.

s-shellfish 8y ago

Do we have to call it an addiction? A video game is an immersive experience that allows an individual to effectively sync into a state of flow detached from reality. If reality is chaotic and stressful and reinforces that sentiment from all directions to yield those internal feelings of agony, it seems obvious that anything that can alleviate such agony would be immediately ran to. Better to be addicted to video games than heroin, right? At least video games can teach modular reasoning. And yes, extreme cases of video game addiction have led to death, but a kid having a daily hobby of playing video games after school is not the same thing.

rimliu 8y ago
> Better to be addicted to video games than heroin, right? Only in terms of your physical health. Otherwise iirc addiction is defined as having negative effect on your life (work, social, personal) so it is as bad. > At least video games can teach modular reasoning. Which will be used only for games, because you are not interested in anything else?
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  > Which will be used only for games, because you are not interested in anything else? Or programming, having a job you have passion for and are good at, being able to produce work people see value in, sustaining yourself, you know, not living in a gutter and stuff dying of a heroin overdose? > Only in terms of your physical health. Otherwise iirc addiction is defined as having negative effect on your life (work, social, personal) so it is as bad. Well, if you love video games and everyone around you hates video games, and thinks video games are as bad as heroin, I could see how that could have a negative effect on your work, social, and personal life.
  - rimliu 8y ago
    I am not talking about liking games and gaming. I am talking about addiction.
    - 8y ago