4 ms·

Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected. I assume lucky for a moment. The problem is less that conversations are more delayed or ad-hoc but mor

Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected. I assume lucky for a moment. The problem is less that conversations are more delayed or ad-hoc but more that they can potentially miss out on "group events". And that is where the problem starts. Because they also can't join in on conversations about that event, etc. This means while the rest of the group will frequently have situations where they emotionally bond you get are not included and in turn get subtle unintended socially isolated. If you are a socially very adapted child you can probably compensate this just fine. If you have other more important friend groups it probably also doesn't matter too much. If there is a group of people (not just a small minority) in the same situation as you in the same social circle it also probably is fine. but if not it really can hurt, and you likely only notice how damaging it was for your social life after the damage is already done and hard to recover even if you now convince your parents to give your more leeway and that's under the assumption the social group in question is "nice" but you e.g. can't choose the people you go to school with and a not so nice social group can use this to intentionally exclude it or use it as a starting point for bullying which often is only addressed when it has gone out of hand to a point where a parent or teacher stepping in can't fix anything anymore and sure above's arguments often matter much more for e.g. multiplayer computer games then for "having a phone", through not having a phone also means e.g. not having a camera and not being able to make and share group photos with your social group instead of denying access to a phone, social media, etc. it's better to control it in a careful and reasonable way. E.g. don't forbid the playing of idk. Fortnight, but explain the problems with it and maybe limit the hours and similar a child can spend, but allow the child to decide when to spend them and allow some degree of saving up hours etc. Similar for social media, etc. Same applies for going out etc. as far as I can tell it's best for you child to allows it a wide leeway just not unlimited and properly educate them about dangers. EDIT: deleted the last paragraph it was off topic

JohnFen 3y ago
> Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected. That sounds a lot like when kids say "you just don't understand!" to parents restricting their activities. The reality is that the parents usually understand fully, but also understand other aspects that the kids don't yet. > that they can potentially miss out on "group events". I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence. First, kids spend a great deal of time in person with their peers at school. Even if something is only planned online, they can still get the details by asking in person. Second, they can use a home computer to do that stuff. A phone isn't mandatory. > not having a phone also means e.g. not having a camera If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist. > it's better to control it in a careful and reasonable way. I agree. But you can't really do that if they have a smartphone. You can do that if they have to use a computer at home to go online. I fully understand that kids will consider the lack of a smartphone to be essentially social suicide. They'll feel like it's an existential problem. But it's not. Good parenting often requires parents to do things that kids think are abusive, but are actually necessary to give them the best shot possible at having a good, healthy adult life. One of the main jobs of a parent is to gradually introduce children to reality. Emphasis on "gradually".
- dathinab 3y ago
  > parents usually understand fully > I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence. I think if you speak with a psychotherapeut which keeps up with the current state of research/sience the answer would be: no many parent have no idea what they are doing, and it is VERY common. It's common enough that some people claim abusing this dynamic is the main source of income for Fortnight ... > If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist. this fully misses the point, it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc. and do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > no many parent have no idea what they are doing Absolutely true, but not relevant to the point that I was trying to make. Kids often claim that parents don't understand the kid's point of view, but parents usually do. That was all I was saying. I wasn't claiming that parents were experts on parenting. > it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc. I understood the point. You can do that with a digital camera. It just takes extra steps and is less immediate. > do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction? Maybe not all, but many absolutely will. I did with my children, and I wasn't unusual in that. The issue isn't sharing or talking with friends, the issue is unfettered exposure to social media.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      > the issue is unfettered exposure to social media. I half agree, but think the issue is more "exposure to unfettered social media" (a bit of a word stunt* I guess, but I'm sure you get what I mean). Through as a parent I agree that there is only so much you can do about social media itself, so you have to find a compromise like you did. *it's more like the access/view the child has to (a potential subset) of a social media providers content then the social media itself

JohnFen 3y ago

> Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected. That sounds a lot like when kids say "you just don't understand!" to parents restricting their activities. The reality is that the parents usually understand fully, but also understand other aspects that the kids don't yet. > that they can potentially miss out on "group events". I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence. First, kids spend a great deal of time in person with their peers at school. Even if something is only planned online, they can still get the details by asking in person. Second, they can use a home computer to do that stuff. A phone isn't mandatory. > not having a phone also means e.g. not having a camera If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist. > it's better to control it in a careful and reasonable way. I agree. But you can't really do that if they have a smartphone. You can do that if they have to use a computer at home to go online. I fully understand that kids will consider the lack of a smartphone to be essentially social suicide. They'll feel like it's an existential problem. But it's not. Good parenting often requires parents to do things that kids think are abusive, but are actually necessary to give them the best shot possible at having a good, healthy adult life. One of the main jobs of a parent is to gradually introduce children to reality. Emphasis on "gradually".

dathinab 3y ago
> parents usually understand fully > I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence. I think if you speak with a psychotherapeut which keeps up with the current state of research/sience the answer would be: no many parent have no idea what they are doing, and it is VERY common. It's common enough that some people claim abusing this dynamic is the main source of income for Fortnight ... > If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist. this fully misses the point, it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc. and do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > no many parent have no idea what they are doing Absolutely true, but not relevant to the point that I was trying to make. Kids often claim that parents don't understand the kid's point of view, but parents usually do. That was all I was saying. I wasn't claiming that parents were experts on parenting. > it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc. I understood the point. You can do that with a digital camera. It just takes extra steps and is less immediate. > do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction? Maybe not all, but many absolutely will. I did with my children, and I wasn't unusual in that. The issue isn't sharing or talking with friends, the issue is unfettered exposure to social media.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    > the issue is unfettered exposure to social media. I half agree, but think the issue is more "exposure to unfettered social media" (a bit of a word stunt* I guess, but I'm sure you get what I mean). Through as a parent I agree that there is only so much you can do about social media itself, so you have to find a compromise like you did. *it's more like the access/view the child has to (a potential subset) of a social media providers content then the social media itself