5 ms·

> "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 sh

> "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).
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    You're assuming things like boredom are not only bad, but worse than endless entertainment. I'd claim that necessity is to invention as boredom is to creativity.
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      > necessity is to invention as boredom is to creativity. Well said. We have a no B-word rule in our house. "Boredom" is a cultural malaise. Neither my partner nor I ever use the word. Until age 5 my kid never had the concept of "being bored". But after starting school she started coming home, huffing and shrugging like a teenager and saying "that's boring!". She gets sent to her room to "find something interesting to think about", and 30 seconds later she's happily playing a dolls game or shooting her bow and arrows at the wardrobe. To take a Wittgensteinian approach - words "stand in" as templates for as yet unformed concepts - young children use words with no understanding of their adult meaning, so they'll say, "that's gay", or "that's spazzy", (or whatever word they picked up in the playground) which means something like "I want be in control, and so I reject whatever it is you think I want". In 2022 "boring" is the worst accusation that can be levelled against anything. It's adults who create and propagate the conceit of "boredom". How could anybody actually be bored in this world, with all the marvels and freedom we have?! What adults mean is something different; "Don't leave me alone with myself, exposed to the existential chasm in my soul, and my abject learned helplessness".
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > What adults mean is something different; "Don't leave me alone with myself, exposed to the existential chasm in my soul, and my abject learned helplessness". I've come to accept and adopt my late father's idea about the purpose of portable music players, which he formulated shortly after the Sony Walkman had got competition from other brands of cassette players, and which now, after an (in retrospect rather short) interlude of dedicated MP3 players, applies to the music player apps in smartphones: That's why everybody[1] nowadays walks around constantly marinating their brains in a drizzle of background music[2]: To drown out their own thoughts -- or to cover the lack thereof. ___ [1]: i.e. more or less "everybody", at the time of writing, under the age of... Idunno, ~50? [2]: Or muzak, as Dad may have put it.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  I agree that high SES parents tend to better regulate screen time. I don’t think that’s the same thing as banning phones/tablets/video games generally, though. The cultural meme is, “these techies don’t give their kids phones or other tech, period,” which I think is unlikely to be a widespread phenomenon. I mean sure, some techie parents do that, no doubt, but I’m guessing it’s far from the majority.

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).
- somenameforme 5y ago
  You're assuming things like boredom are not only bad, but worse than endless entertainment. I'd claim that necessity is to invention as boredom is to creativity.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > necessity is to invention as boredom is to creativity. Well said. We have a no B-word rule in our house. "Boredom" is a cultural malaise. Neither my partner nor I ever use the word. Until age 5 my kid never had the concept of "being bored". But after starting school she started coming home, huffing and shrugging like a teenager and saying "that's boring!". She gets sent to her room to "find something interesting to think about", and 30 seconds later she's happily playing a dolls game or shooting her bow and arrows at the wardrobe. To take a Wittgensteinian approach - words "stand in" as templates for as yet unformed concepts - young children use words with no understanding of their adult meaning, so they'll say, "that's gay", or "that's spazzy", (or whatever word they picked up in the playground) which means something like "I want be in control, and so I reject whatever it is you think I want". In 2022 "boring" is the worst accusation that can be levelled against anything. It's adults who create and propagate the conceit of "boredom". How could anybody actually be bored in this world, with all the marvels and freedom we have?! What adults mean is something different; "Don't leave me alone with myself, exposed to the existential chasm in my soul, and my abject learned helplessness".
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > What adults mean is something different; "Don't leave me alone with myself, exposed to the existential chasm in my soul, and my abject learned helplessness". I've come to accept and adopt my late father's idea about the purpose of portable music players, which he formulated shortly after the Sony Walkman had got competition from other brands of cassette players, and which now, after an (in retrospect rather short) interlude of dedicated MP3 players, applies to the music player apps in smartphones: That's why everybody[1] nowadays walks around constantly marinating their brains in a drizzle of background music[2]: To drown out their own thoughts -- or to cover the lack thereof. ___ [1]: i.e. more or less "everybody", at the time of writing, under the age of... Idunno, ~50? [2]: Or muzak, as Dad may have put it.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
I agree that high SES parents tend to better regulate screen time. I don’t think that’s the same thing as banning phones/tablets/video games generally, though. The cultural meme is, “these techies don’t give their kids phones or other tech, period,” which I think is unlikely to be a widespread phenomenon. I mean sure, some techie parents do that, no doubt, but I’m guessing it’s far from the majority.