4 ms·

I agree. Something about the tone of this article felt fundamentally dishonest (perhaps an edu-tech puff piece) and too keen to prove a point about a whole clas

I agree. Something about the tone of this article felt fundamentally dishonest (perhaps an edu-tech puff piece) and too keen to prove a point about a whole class of people using vague allusions. > "technologists know how phones really work, and many have decided they don’t want their own children anywhere near them" I do. And I have. Although I speak for only one technologist. > "These articles assume that techies have access to secret wisdom about the harmful effects of technology on children." Some of us do because we _design_ it, and under conditions of NDA. Only recently leaks of emails proved this precise point. Many more of us have "not-secret" wisdom as we proudly publish scientific papers about it. Moral judgements aside, we know what this stuff does. But the author attempts to insinuate the language of conspiracy. > "Based on two decades of living among, working with, and researching Silicon Valley technology employees, I can confidently assert that this secret knowledge does not exist." Then either the author has not been living, working and researching very well, or his confidence is misplaced.

elevaet 5y ago
> I do. And I have. Although I speak for only one technologist. Same here. I'm a programmer, and my goal is to delay phones for my kids until the last possible hour. My kids spend time drawing, doing sports, reading books, swimming, playing with friends and animals. Phones and devices are like digital crack for kids, and they prefer to keep hitting that lever over any of these other activities when the option is there.
- skyde 5y ago
  very interesting. For my kid (4 years old) I made sure to only install app that are not "crack". Not all apps are bad (I agree 95% of them are). You can just look at "https://marbotic.com/ https://marbotic.com/" for example, it's not worse than having your kid play scrabble or chess. If somehow you kid get addicted to it then after they played all the level they will be able to read write and do math at the 3rd grade level :)
- djhn 5y ago
  What age have they reached without tech and what's your best case scenario looking like?
  - elevaet 5y ago
    They're not being raised without tech at all, they just don't have their own devices, or any open access to one. Their screen time is limited to a small amount of passive consumption per week (2 * 1/2hr episodes on Netflix per week, or a movie), and engaged or creative use of a tablet for about 2h/week. Lately that's been drawing tutorials on youtube, duolingo, wordle. We're pushing off allowing them to have their own phones for as long as possible. We're friends with a lot of families with the same approach, but also a lot of friends of my older (10yo) kid do have phones already. At some point it will be very difficult when they start getting left out of the party (so to speak). My best case scenario is that the extra time this frees up will give them the space in their lives to grow talents and health that they wouldn't otherwise. I'm much happier to see my sons getting really good at pencil drawing and playing soccer than having a social media profile or being good at some video game. I feel having a really healthy body and some old school analogue skills like drawing will carry them further than whatever general digital distractions have to offer.
    - djhn 5y ago
      Thanks, this is very interesting for a soon-to-be parent.
- fortylove 5y ago
  We're taking a different approach, where we teach limits on tech. TV is not inherently bad if the right content is played for the right amount of time. Phones are not inherently bad if used for the right activity for the right amount of time. Evening gaming is not inherently bad, if used for the right amount of time. Yeah, we don't want to raise a phone zombie. But I believe you can do that without totally shielding them from tech. edit: a word
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> "technologists know how phones really work, and many have decided they don’t want their own children anywhere near them" Exactly. Is there any actual data showing software engineers and the like are less likely to have phones or tablets for their kids? My guess is that it's the opposite, but that would undermine the author's point.
- somenameforme 5y ago
  In my anecdotal experience the difference has been strongly tied to socioeconomic factors. And the first study I was able to find [1] on this topic confirmed this is the major factor. See page 18. There's an extremely strong inverse correlation between education/income and how long people allow their children to use screen media devices. Low income, low education = high screen media time with a sharply increasing trend. High income, high education = low screen media time with a mostly flat trend. This is also happening at the same time that low income families are also having a declining rate of home access to laptop/desktops. Suffice to say that if it turns out that screen media is indeed detrimental to the development of children then we're basically ensuring that the socioeconomic divide is going to turn into a chasm. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20211230141505/https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2020_zero_to_eight_census_final_web.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20211230141505/https://www.commo... (This study for some reason has been removed from their site, and so I am linking to the archive.)
  - Jare 5y ago
    > if it turns out that screen media is indeed detrimental to the development of children then we're basically ensuring that the socioeconomic divide is going to turn into a chasm Depends on what's the alternative for all that screen time. If these parents could substitute screen time with healthy family / healthy / educational activity, then sure, media time is making things worse. I'm pretty convinced that the extra presence of screen time at the lower socioeconomic scale is a consequence of parents' lack of time, education and resources to provide that kind of alternative. So, the actual alternatives to screen time might likely be worse (inattention, boredom, early exposure to adult world, etc).

elevaet 5y ago

> I do. And I have. Although I speak for only one technologist. Same here. I'm a programmer, and my goal is to delay phones for my kids until the last possible hour. My kids spend time drawing, doing sports, reading books, swimming, playing with friends and animals. Phones and devices are like digital crack for kids, and they prefer to keep hitting that lever over any of these other activities when the option is there.

skyde 5y ago
very interesting. For my kid (4 years old) I made sure to only install app that are not "crack". Not all apps are bad (I agree 95% of them are). You can just look at "https://marbotic.com/ https://marbotic.com/" for example, it's not worse than having your kid play scrabble or chess. If somehow you kid get addicted to it then after they played all the level they will be able to read write and do math at the 3rd grade level :)
djhn 5y ago
What age have they reached without tech and what's your best case scenario looking like?
- elevaet 5y ago
  They're not being raised without tech at all, they just don't have their own devices, or any open access to one. Their screen time is limited to a small amount of passive consumption per week (2 * 1/2hr episodes on Netflix per week, or a movie), and engaged or creative use of a tablet for about 2h/week. Lately that's been drawing tutorials on youtube, duolingo, wordle. We're pushing off allowing them to have their own phones for as long as possible. We're friends with a lot of families with the same approach, but also a lot of friends of my older (10yo) kid do have phones already. At some point it will be very difficult when they start getting left out of the party (so to speak). My best case scenario is that the extra time this frees up will give them the space in their lives to grow talents and health that they wouldn't otherwise. I'm much happier to see my sons getting really good at pencil drawing and playing soccer than having a social media profile or being good at some video game. I feel having a really healthy body and some old school analogue skills like drawing will carry them further than whatever general digital distractions have to offer.
  - djhn 5y ago
    Thanks, this is very interesting for a soon-to-be parent.
fortylove 5y ago
We're taking a different approach, where we teach limits on tech. TV is not inherently bad if the right content is played for the right amount of time. Phones are not inherently bad if used for the right activity for the right amount of time. Evening gaming is not inherently bad, if used for the right amount of time. Yeah, we don't want to raise a phone zombie. But I believe you can do that without totally shielding them from tech. edit: a word

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> "technologists know how phones really work, and many have decided they don’t want their own children anywhere near them" Exactly. Is there any actual data showing software engineers and the like are less likely to have phones or tablets for their kids? My guess is that it's the opposite, but that would undermine the author's point.

somenameforme 5y ago
In my anecdotal experience the difference has been strongly tied to socioeconomic factors. And the first study I was able to find [1] on this topic confirmed this is the major factor. See page 18. There's an extremely strong inverse correlation between education/income and how long people allow their children to use screen media devices. Low income, low education = high screen media time with a sharply increasing trend. High income, high education = low screen media time with a mostly flat trend. This is also happening at the same time that low income families are also having a declining rate of home access to laptop/desktops. Suffice to say that if it turns out that screen media is indeed detrimental to the development of children then we're basically ensuring that the socioeconomic divide is going to turn into a chasm. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20211230141505/https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2020_zero_to_eight_census_final_web.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20211230141505/https://www.commo... (This study for some reason has been removed from their site, and so I am linking to the archive.)
- Jare 5y ago
  > if it turns out that screen media is indeed detrimental to the development of children then we're basically ensuring that the socioeconomic divide is going to turn into a chasm Depends on what's the alternative for all that screen time. If these parents could substitute screen time with healthy family / healthy / educational activity, then sure, media time is making things worse. I'm pretty convinced that the extra presence of screen time at the lower socioeconomic scale is a consequence of parents' lack of time, education and resources to provide that kind of alternative. So, the actual alternatives to screen time might likely be worse (inattention, boredom, early exposure to adult world, etc).