4 ms·

i wonder how much of kids technology use today could count as 'play'? there's a lot of undirected activity that wouldn't count because they're just passive con

i wonder how much of kids technology use today could count as 'play'? there's a lot of undirected activity that wouldn't count because they're just passive consumers, but surely some of it could count as a way of exercising creative impulses and learning various social norms (even though those are online norms and not real-life norms)?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> i wonder how much of kids technology use today could count as 'play'? Basically, none. The 'play' that is important here is unstructured play with other children, face-to-face. All social mammals engage in play of this type, and it's critical for teaching a lot of important skills. To clarify, there may be other things kids do that can validly be called "play" that are solitary, but that's really not the issue that's at hand here, and those types of solitary play activities can't substitute for play with other kids. Technology simply can't, and shouldn't, be confused as a substitute for a lot of human interactions. I really like Esther Perel's talks about the new "AI", meaning artificial intimacy, where "I have a thousand friends, but nobody to feed my cat."
- rachofsunshine 2y ago
  I'd argue it is play, but not sufficient play. I learned to type by trying to frantically communicate with other players in World of Warcraft. I wasn't trying to learn to type, any more than a kid playing soccer is trying to develop motor skills, but I learned by exposure. Kids today playing games on an iPad or texting their friends don't think of those things as developing technological fluency or language skills, but that's exactly what it is, and that does matter. It's just that other things matter too. I'd call what you're calling "play" something like "social play". And in this framing the problem is that, by providing more immediately-available and compelling activities than talking with their friends, we're denying the incidental development of social bonds and skills (like negotiating rules or handling conflicts) that kids need. So they're getting play that's heavily focused in one area, rather than the varied exposure that equips them for all the different pieces of life.
- parpfish 2y ago
  i'm asking because i grew up under what would now be called 'helicopter parents' that were very restrictive and controlling when it came to the real-world play opportunities. however, the early internet at the time gave me a chance to explore something on my own without supervision. and a chance to create some sort of space that i had control over (even if it was just stupid geocities html or microsoft bob desktops). i know that i missed out on the ability to ride my bike around all day and go on real world adventures or start random pick up games with the neighbors, but this had to count for something, right? modern technology play might give kids a sense of their "own space", but it seems so much less playful.
rapsey 2y ago
None of it counts as play. If there are no real stakes (cuts and bruises) there is no real learning. Children need boredom to force themselves to seek new experiences. Technology disrupts critical brain development for anyone under 16.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> i wonder how much of kids technology use today could count as 'play'? Basically, none. The 'play' that is important here is unstructured play with other children, face-to-face. All social mammals engage in play of this type, and it's critical for teaching a lot of important skills. To clarify, there may be other things kids do that can validly be called "play" that are solitary, but that's really not the issue that's at hand here, and those types of solitary play activities can't substitute for play with other kids. Technology simply can't, and shouldn't, be confused as a substitute for a lot of human interactions. I really like Esther Perel's talks about the new "AI", meaning artificial intimacy, where "I have a thousand friends, but nobody to feed my cat."

rachofsunshine 2y ago
I'd argue it is play, but not sufficient play. I learned to type by trying to frantically communicate with other players in World of Warcraft. I wasn't trying to learn to type, any more than a kid playing soccer is trying to develop motor skills, but I learned by exposure. Kids today playing games on an iPad or texting their friends don't think of those things as developing technological fluency or language skills, but that's exactly what it is, and that does matter. It's just that other things matter too. I'd call what you're calling "play" something like "social play". And in this framing the problem is that, by providing more immediately-available and compelling activities than talking with their friends, we're denying the incidental development of social bonds and skills (like negotiating rules or handling conflicts) that kids need. So they're getting play that's heavily focused in one area, rather than the varied exposure that equips them for all the different pieces of life.
parpfish 2y ago
i'm asking because i grew up under what would now be called 'helicopter parents' that were very restrictive and controlling when it came to the real-world play opportunities. however, the early internet at the time gave me a chance to explore something on my own without supervision. and a chance to create some sort of space that i had control over (even if it was just stupid geocities html or microsoft bob desktops). i know that i missed out on the ability to ride my bike around all day and go on real world adventures or start random pick up games with the neighbors, but this had to count for something, right? modern technology play might give kids a sense of their "own space", but it seems so much less playful.

rapsey 2y ago

None of it counts as play. If there are no real stakes (cuts and bruises) there is no real learning. Children need boredom to force themselves to seek new experiences. Technology disrupts critical brain development for anyone under 16.