4 ms·

One of the first sentences in the article stuck out to me: >I wanted my kids to play games instead of passively consuming endless amounts of YouTube. I'm kind

One of the first sentences in the article stuck out to me: >I wanted my kids to play games instead of passively consuming endless amounts of YouTube. I'm kinda surprised that modern parents consider watching youtube a worse activity than gaming.

bombcar 3y ago
In an old Wodehouse school story the kids are being chastised for reading Great Expectations by Dickens instead of their schoolwork.
jdhawk 3y ago
I'd still rather have them play in the real world over either, but at least its a semi-active activity (problem solving, hand eye coordination?) vs a purely consumptive one.
omneity 3y ago
Barring bad time-management habits, gaming stimulates and develops both motor and intellectual skills, and offers a safe and sandboxed environment to experiment and get exposed with various topics. (YMMV with multiplayer games, but that's also an experience in and of itself) Watching content is a passive activity. At best you're accumulating information.
- veeti 3y ago
  It's also a great medium for learning English, if you are not a native speaker.
  - imp0cat 3y ago
    Gaming or youtube? It's a trick question, both are great.
    - bartvk 3y ago
      Yup. And gaming as in board/roleplaying-games too.
  - speed_spread 3y ago
    Not as good as chatting, which requires one to formulate ideas in target language.
  - omneity 3y ago
    That's actually how I first learned English!
Ekaros 3y ago
Having seen the auto-played stream of Youtube videos on family gathering I would consider reasonably well selected game catalogue to be vastly superior to content that lot of Youtube is... It was either seemingly auto-played mario party or entirely bizarre and weird stuff...
dsr_ 3y ago
Am parent. After 30 minutes of YT entertainment, kids are clearly disengaging their brains. After 30 minutes of video games, kids are talking to each other and actively commenting, hypothesizing, or empathizing. Would I prefer that they be reading a book? Yes. Is playing a video game better than watching YT? Also yes.
- torginus 3y ago
  I never got the books argument. Is reading YA novels like the Hunger Games a more highbrow activity than watching movies or playing games like Civilization? It's not immediately obvious to me.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    It's more about the mode of consumption than the content itself. The same way one might argue reading a book is better than listening to the audio book because it requires marginally more focus since it's an active vs passive activity. Now add screen time into the mix.
  - nkozyra 3y ago
    Highbrow isn't the way to look at it. I think what books do, primarily, is make the brain work in a different way, because you're constructing a visual and perhaps audio interpretation of text. Which causes you to do a lot of world building yourself, whereas in Civilization it's the opposite. Neither is better or worse but they're different forms of mental exercise.
  - n6242 3y ago
    At least for me, reading requires significantly more concentration, comprehension and imagination than watching a movie, which is completely passive. Especially when reading/watching in English which is my second language. Games are harder to compare as they're pretty active, it probably depends on the game.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    It's a hard question when you mix the content as well, but yeah, reading a YAF-y book is way more actively engaging than watching the TV version of it. There's also an extra effect of the effort needed to get to the end, possibly over a number of days that will make you think of that content again. The movie will end in a couple of hours whether you care about it or not. The details of the world building are also going to be much better in the book version where the author has more space for it.
sebstefan 3y ago
Adult youtube is a lot of educational content and it's definitely better than gaming on that front but kids' youtube is something else entirely
nkozyra 3y ago
> I'm kinda surprised that modern parents consider watching youtube a worse activity than gaming. Kids have a different relationship with algorithms wherein they don't recognize they're being targeted with low quality stuff, watch a bit of it, and start a feedback loop. I can "fix" my YT recommendations within a day if I went exploring and started getting fed stuff I don't want, but I find younger kids are happy to just fire through it as though it's TikTok. Generally they end up with very low quality click bait very quickly. I'd rather my son have at least a tinge of mental engagement if he's going to have a screen.
- milesvp 3y ago
  And worse, they can get sucked into some very dark places and not realize they’re being sold some garbage ideology. I once clicked on some lecture that I thought sounded interesting. Next thing I know my feed is full of red pill/blue pill nonsense. I know enough to fight this kind of ideological onslaught. Someone younger and less experienced could easily get swept in.
Aaargh20318 3y ago
> I'm kinda surprised that modern parents consider watching youtube a worse activity than gaming. I read an article about a study a while back that showed that people who less brain activity when watching TV than when staring at a blank wall* Another study I read studied children (up to 3 years old) that watched educational DVDs supposed to teach them new words. Turns out that the children who watched those DVDs scored lower on vocabulary tests than those that didn't watch them* *: I'm too lazy to look up the references, so you'd have to Bing them yourself.
usrusr 3y ago
The way you write it makes it sound almost unsurprising: of course staring at YouTube is worse than almost anything. But I had the exact same surprise: do parents now consider playing video games as something to strive for? Not as bad as YouTube, I get it, but it does have a certain "the cocaine helps me staying away from crack" vibe...
- Loughla 3y ago
  It used to be that TV was bad for you. Now that's just accepted. This is the way it goes, I think.
- viraptor 3y ago
  > do parents now consider playing video games as something to strive for Which games? Candy crush - no. Nandgame - yes. (https://www.nandgame.com/ https://www.nandgame.com/) And there's a whole spectrum in between. Games are not equal. "Screen time" is a terrible generalisation most of the time.
footlose_3815 3y ago
Gaming is a much healthier ecosystem than Youtube. Youtubers are mostly thirsty, talentless repeaters of mis/information. Many of these Youtubers get coaxed into stupid belief systems, and they start to spread it to their viewers. Gaming doesn’t have a political / message objective. The youtube algorithm previously (and maybe now) has been trained by superPACs to recommend alt-right and conspiracy videos.
lawn 3y ago
I'm surprised this is controversial. It seems obvious to me that being actively engaged in (curated) gaming is better than passively consuming videos that YouTube recommends. With gaming kids can develop: - Motor skills and hand-eye coordination - Communication and collaborative skills - Problem solving skills - Learning to cope with losses and setbacks - Social interactions Of course, I'd rather them play with Legos, run around and play or even play boardgames with me or each other. But if it's a choice between playing games or watching YouTube, I absolutely prefer them to play games.
darthrupert 3y ago
At least offline gaming is way better for several reasons. One, games lack the algorithm directing them towards arbitrary directions, possibly exact opposite of what you would like. Two, the child chooses what they play, and focus on the one thing they're doing. Three, playing typically is a much more active activity instead of passive consuming. But it's still not something you should allow/encourage kids to do for several consecutive hours or instead of sleeping.

bombcar 3y ago

In an old Wodehouse school story the kids are being chastised for reading Great Expectations by Dickens instead of their schoolwork.

jdhawk 3y ago

I'd still rather have them play in the real world over either, but at least its a semi-active activity (problem solving, hand eye coordination?) vs a purely consumptive one.

omneity 3y ago

Barring bad time-management habits, gaming stimulates and develops both motor and intellectual skills, and offers a safe and sandboxed environment to experiment and get exposed with various topics. (YMMV with multiplayer games, but that's also an experience in and of itself) Watching content is a passive activity. At best you're accumulating information.

veeti 3y ago
It's also a great medium for learning English, if you are not a native speaker.
- imp0cat 3y ago
  Gaming or youtube? It's a trick question, both are great.
  - bartvk 3y ago
    Yup. And gaming as in board/roleplaying-games too.
- speed_spread 3y ago
  Not as good as chatting, which requires one to formulate ideas in target language.
- omneity 3y ago
  That's actually how I first learned English!

Ekaros 3y ago

Having seen the auto-played stream of Youtube videos on family gathering I would consider reasonably well selected game catalogue to be vastly superior to content that lot of Youtube is... It was either seemingly auto-played mario party or entirely bizarre and weird stuff...

dsr_ 3y ago

Am parent. After 30 minutes of YT entertainment, kids are clearly disengaging their brains. After 30 minutes of video games, kids are talking to each other and actively commenting, hypothesizing, or empathizing. Would I prefer that they be reading a book? Yes. Is playing a video game better than watching YT? Also yes.

torginus 3y ago
I never got the books argument. Is reading YA novels like the Hunger Games a more highbrow activity than watching movies or playing games like Civilization? It's not immediately obvious to me.
- _cenw 3y ago
  It's more about the mode of consumption than the content itself. The same way one might argue reading a book is better than listening to the audio book because it requires marginally more focus since it's an active vs passive activity. Now add screen time into the mix.
- nkozyra 3y ago
  Highbrow isn't the way to look at it. I think what books do, primarily, is make the brain work in a different way, because you're constructing a visual and perhaps audio interpretation of text. Which causes you to do a lot of world building yourself, whereas in Civilization it's the opposite. Neither is better or worse but they're different forms of mental exercise.
- n6242 3y ago
  At least for me, reading requires significantly more concentration, comprehension and imagination than watching a movie, which is completely passive. Especially when reading/watching in English which is my second language. Games are harder to compare as they're pretty active, it probably depends on the game.
- viraptor 3y ago
  It's a hard question when you mix the content as well, but yeah, reading a YAF-y book is way more actively engaging than watching the TV version of it. There's also an extra effect of the effort needed to get to the end, possibly over a number of days that will make you think of that content again. The movie will end in a couple of hours whether you care about it or not. The details of the world building are also going to be much better in the book version where the author has more space for it.

sebstefan 3y ago

Adult youtube is a lot of educational content and it's definitely better than gaming on that front but kids' youtube is something else entirely

nkozyra 3y ago

> I'm kinda surprised that modern parents consider watching youtube a worse activity than gaming. Kids have a different relationship with algorithms wherein they don't recognize they're being targeted with low quality stuff, watch a bit of it, and start a feedback loop. I can "fix" my YT recommendations within a day if I went exploring and started getting fed stuff I don't want, but I find younger kids are happy to just fire through it as though it's TikTok. Generally they end up with very low quality click bait very quickly. I'd rather my son have at least a tinge of mental engagement if he's going to have a screen.

milesvp 3y ago
And worse, they can get sucked into some very dark places and not realize they’re being sold some garbage ideology. I once clicked on some lecture that I thought sounded interesting. Next thing I know my feed is full of red pill/blue pill nonsense. I know enough to fight this kind of ideological onslaught. Someone younger and less experienced could easily get swept in.

Aaargh20318 3y ago

> I'm kinda surprised that modern parents consider watching youtube a worse activity than gaming. I read an article about a study a while back that showed that people who less brain activity when watching TV than when staring at a blank wall* Another study I read studied children (up to 3 years old) that watched educational DVDs supposed to teach them new words. Turns out that the children who watched those DVDs scored lower on vocabulary tests than those that didn't watch them* *: I'm too lazy to look up the references, so you'd have to Bing them yourself.

usrusr 3y ago

The way you write it makes it sound almost unsurprising: of course staring at YouTube is worse than almost anything. But I had the exact same surprise: do parents now consider playing video games as something to strive for? Not as bad as YouTube, I get it, but it does have a certain "the cocaine helps me staying away from crack" vibe...

Loughla 3y ago
It used to be that TV was bad for you. Now that's just accepted. This is the way it goes, I think.
viraptor 3y ago
> do parents now consider playing video games as something to strive for Which games? Candy crush - no. Nandgame - yes. (https://www.nandgame.com/ https://www.nandgame.com/) And there's a whole spectrum in between. Games are not equal. "Screen time" is a terrible generalisation most of the time.

footlose_3815 3y ago

Gaming is a much healthier ecosystem than Youtube. Youtubers are mostly thirsty, talentless repeaters of mis/information. Many of these Youtubers get coaxed into stupid belief systems, and they start to spread it to their viewers. Gaming doesn’t have a political / message objective. The youtube algorithm previously (and maybe now) has been trained by superPACs to recommend alt-right and conspiracy videos.

lawn 3y ago

I'm surprised this is controversial. It seems obvious to me that being actively engaged in (curated) gaming is better than passively consuming videos that YouTube recommends. With gaming kids can develop: - Motor skills and hand-eye coordination - Communication and collaborative skills - Problem solving skills - Learning to cope with losses and setbacks - Social interactions Of course, I'd rather them play with Legos, run around and play or even play boardgames with me or each other. But if it's a choice between playing games or watching YouTube, I absolutely prefer them to play games.

darthrupert 3y ago

At least offline gaming is way better for several reasons. One, games lack the algorithm directing them towards arbitrary directions, possibly exact opposite of what you would like. Two, the child chooses what they play, and focus on the one thing they're doing. Three, playing typically is a much more active activity instead of passive consuming. But it's still not something you should allow/encourage kids to do for several consecutive hours or instead of sleeping.