7 ms·

> So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web. Also, he has specific times when he can use hi

> So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web. Also, he has specific times when he can use his devices аnd limits on how much time. I think this sort of hyperbole is unhelpful. What people are worried about is more mundane: whether the hyperconnectedness will make their kids less happy in the short or long run. There is some evidence that the age of first smartphone negatively correlates with these outcomes. [1] For my daughters, I worry about social media use, body image issues, and the like. > Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly. This is just magical thinking born out of laziness. I don't think most parents think this would be a magic bullet. They just think that it is one (important) tool in the toolkit. We understand that parents (noun) are supposed to parent (verb). It's not lazy to say that we think our children would be better served if their brains were a bit more developed before they are confronted with the world of addictive apps and always-on social media. I'm glad to hear that things have worked out well for your kid. There are of course a variety of outcomes for different kinds of kids. No one knows whether their kid would have been happier (or would have grown into a happier adult) had they done something differently. We are all just trying to figure out how to do our best, and for some people that means slowing down the rate of change from one generation to the next. 1: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/sapien-smartphone-report https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/sapien-smartphone-repor...

jhanschoo 3y ago
To add a data point regarding early access to internet, I know of a <14yo kid who was learning digital art from yt, using iPad apps to draw, and sharing them on fora, and finding community online when they felt unable to connect with their peers in school. There were negatives to that experience too, and it could have turned out much worse. But completely prohibiting mobile usage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- sisve 3y ago
  Completely prohibited is not what they say is it? Is it not wait until 8'th grade to get your own. Meaning you can borrow your parents or similar.
- ta8903 3y ago
  The pledge is about smartphones, you can access the internet and use it for learning, communicating, etc with a PC/laptop.
- GTP 3y ago
  As a person who had difficulties relating with other kids back in school (and that also had his first phone later than many other guys) I think that in my case having a smartphone and unrestricted internet access already in elementary school could have made things worse for me, as I would have been even less incentivized in learning how to relate with other kids. Sure, I could have been happier in the short term, but I think my social skills would have been worse long term. Of course this is just my opinion and in my specific case, but I generally agree that waiting until middle school is a good idea. And of course this doesn't mean that parents don't still have to do their job at informing their kids about potential issues of social media and the Internet on general, but I think that an older kid is better equipped to deal with those. At such an age, even 2/3 years make a big difference in maturity.
  - fifticon 3y ago
    this was me too
- gnicholas 3y ago
  What you've described doesn't appear to depend on usage of internet-connected mobile devices. The research in this area looks at cellular-connected devices, not just access to a laptop/Chromebook/tablet that requires wifi. Was this kid using a smartphone to engage with these communities? I would think this would be unnecessary, and that s/he could have participated via computer and gotten much of the same value (with fewer issues related to FOMO). But I don't know what the situation was. Can you share more?
geocar 3y ago
[flagged]
- lelanthran 3y ago
  Your whole reply appears, to me, to be completely unhinged, but this bit: > They will learn that "slowing down the rate of change" is a dog whistle for denying the rights of a human being because their parents told them they were a girl. does make me ask ... What on earth are you talking about?
  - prepend 3y ago
    I’m not GP, but the post seemed off to me too and there’s likely more going on that is generalized to the entire conversation. There’s way more kind loving parents working to help their children flourish than denying their human being rights. And stopping the loving ones to also stop the jerks seems like a net negative impact change.
- debok 3y ago
  > Yes they do. Lots of people do because they talk to their kids. You are assuming that the kids somehow magically know what would make them happy. > One day, your kids are going to tell you that you are wrong. Totally wrong. Wrong about morality and ethics. Wrong wrong. And you are going to have to believe them, or you will lose access to a part of their life forever. How do you know that? I for one feel that my parents gave me way too much access to tech while I was too young to handle it. Also, I wouldn't cut my parents off for disagreeing with me about morality or ethics, I would expect the same treatment from my kids when they are grown-ups. > Raising a kid is hard, but being a kid is harder. I did both, and in my experience raising a kid is much harder than being one.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    Sometimes they don't know what WOULD make them happy, but most of the time they are pretty certain about what DID make them happy or unhappy. So, adjust as required. Your goal is not to eliminate all the potential for suffering and frustration in their lives, this is a lame, and impossible goal. Your goal is to enable them to deal with that in a positive and constructive way.
THENATHE 3y ago
The idea of waiting till a certain threshold is a lot like how Europe doesn’t have the “18-22 binge drinking” problem because they are conditioned to understand alcohol isn’t just a “I’m at a party, gotta get my monthly intake in one night” because they’re around it all the time rather than just once a month at a party. Early exposure and proper regulation is key, and the hyperboles he used,IMO are very relevant and astute

jhanschoo 3y ago

To add a data point regarding early access to internet, I know of a <14yo kid who was learning digital art from yt, using iPad apps to draw, and sharing them on fora, and finding community online when they felt unable to connect with their peers in school. There were negatives to that experience too, and it could have turned out much worse. But completely prohibiting mobile usage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

sisve 3y ago
Completely prohibited is not what they say is it? Is it not wait until 8'th grade to get your own. Meaning you can borrow your parents or similar.
ta8903 3y ago
The pledge is about smartphones, you can access the internet and use it for learning, communicating, etc with a PC/laptop.
GTP 3y ago
As a person who had difficulties relating with other kids back in school (and that also had his first phone later than many other guys) I think that in my case having a smartphone and unrestricted internet access already in elementary school could have made things worse for me, as I would have been even less incentivized in learning how to relate with other kids. Sure, I could have been happier in the short term, but I think my social skills would have been worse long term. Of course this is just my opinion and in my specific case, but I generally agree that waiting until middle school is a good idea. And of course this doesn't mean that parents don't still have to do their job at informing their kids about potential issues of social media and the Internet on general, but I think that an older kid is better equipped to deal with those. At such an age, even 2/3 years make a big difference in maturity.
- fifticon 3y ago
  this was me too
gnicholas 3y ago
What you've described doesn't appear to depend on usage of internet-connected mobile devices. The research in this area looks at cellular-connected devices, not just access to a laptop/Chromebook/tablet that requires wifi. Was this kid using a smartphone to engage with these communities? I would think this would be unnecessary, and that s/he could have participated via computer and gotten much of the same value (with fewer issues related to FOMO). But I don't know what the situation was. Can you share more?

geocar 3y ago

[flagged]

lelanthran 3y ago
Your whole reply appears, to me, to be completely unhinged, but this bit: > They will learn that "slowing down the rate of change" is a dog whistle for denying the rights of a human being because their parents told them they were a girl. does make me ask ... What on earth are you talking about?
- prepend 3y ago
  I’m not GP, but the post seemed off to me too and there’s likely more going on that is generalized to the entire conversation. There’s way more kind loving parents working to help their children flourish than denying their human being rights. And stopping the loving ones to also stop the jerks seems like a net negative impact change.
debok 3y ago
> Yes they do. Lots of people do because they talk to their kids. You are assuming that the kids somehow magically know what would make them happy. > One day, your kids are going to tell you that you are wrong. Totally wrong. Wrong about morality and ethics. Wrong wrong. And you are going to have to believe them, or you will lose access to a part of their life forever. How do you know that? I for one feel that my parents gave me way too much access to tech while I was too young to handle it. Also, I wouldn't cut my parents off for disagreeing with me about morality or ethics, I would expect the same treatment from my kids when they are grown-ups. > Raising a kid is hard, but being a kid is harder. I did both, and in my experience raising a kid is much harder than being one.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Sometimes they don't know what WOULD make them happy, but most of the time they are pretty certain about what DID make them happy or unhappy. So, adjust as required. Your goal is not to eliminate all the potential for suffering and frustration in their lives, this is a lame, and impossible goal. Your goal is to enable them to deal with that in a positive and constructive way.

THENATHE 3y ago

The idea of waiting till a certain threshold is a lot like how Europe doesn’t have the “18-22 binge drinking” problem because they are conditioned to understand alcohol isn’t just a “I’m at a party, gotta get my monthly intake in one night” because they’re around it all the time rather than just once a month at a party. Early exposure and proper regulation is key, and the hyperboles he used,IMO are very relevant and astute