6 ms·

Oh, I grew up in the same times, in the same general area, with just a little whee bit of difference: I'm aspergers, I'm socially anxious, and I quite clearly r

Oh, I grew up in the same times, in the same general area, with just a little whee bit of difference: I'm aspergers, I'm socially anxious, and I quite clearly remember that most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me. Ooops. Also, while I didn't spend that much time among modern kids, I do see them having lots of fun (yes, with the eeevil tablets too, sometimes), and then going to organized activities that they often pick themselves and seem to enjoy more than kicking a brick or bullying (sorry, was I meant to say "fighting"? Well, I won't) another group of kids. And then they get a bit older, and find sports or creative or technical activities that were completely out of reach of most kids growing up in the magical eighties. It's just part "our times were different", part golden age mythology. In reality, the entire concept of childhood as we modernly understand it is fairly young, and the idea that kids play and adults don't is ridiculous. Furthermore, it's just us adults judging kids to not having played enough without putting their health in danger or at least getting uncomfortably dirty. Modern kids play. A lot. Just because they play in a way that's different from yours or bucolic paintings doesn't mean they don't actually have more fun than you did.

martythemaniak 13y ago
> most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me. I'm sorry for your experience, but that's absolutely not what I meant, nor what happened. "Fighting" as I said there was actually things like snowball fights in the winter or paper-cone-in-tube or soft/rotten-fruit-in-sligshot fights in the summer, and always in a group-vs-group setting. I am in fact your fairly typical shy introverted bookish geek and the reason I think so highly of this type of play is precisely because it allowed me to overcome these tendencies and be a normal kid. My real worry here isn't that kids today aren't doing the exact same things I did. It's that they don't have the option to do certain things anymore - things which may in fact be extremely valuable. What I described in my OP wasn't false, but it wasn't complete - I also spent much time playing Legos, reading books, "technical activities" with my dad's tools. Better or worse, one thing I can definitely say is my nephew has far fewer options and choices than I did at his age.
- LaGrange 13y ago
  > "Fighting" as I said there was actually things like snowball fights in the winter or paper-cone-in-tube or soft/rotten-fruit-in-sligshot fights in the summer, and always in a group-vs-group setting. That was always what the less lucky kids were told when they complained. And then painted as spoil-sports until they stopped complaining to avoid embarrassment. > It's that they don't have the option to do certain things anymore - things which may in fact be extremely valuable. I don't know about your specific family, but in general, they have far, far more options, up to and including extreme sports. Pretty sure I didn't know any kid that could try climbing or spelunking in the eighties.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Maybe we're talking about the difference between "generalist" and "specialist" here? It seems like if a child decides to participate in such narrowly focused activities, it could be at the expense of being exposed to different sorts of people and getting a more all-encompassing world view.
    - LaGrange 13y ago
      Too bad they often try a bunch of them before they settle, then, if they do, right? It's not like you can fill your entire week with dancing lessons and survive for long.
      - pyre 13y ago
        I was just putting forth an idea. There was no need to reach right for the sarcasm and add copious amounts of it. > It's not like you can fill your entire week with dancing lessons and survive for long. Maybe you haven't seen people that have been doing X (for various values of X) since they were 5 or 6 (e.g. Tiger Woods, gymnasts, hardcore ballerinas, etc).
        LaGrange 13y ago
        Which has been happening since pretty much forever, and thankfully isn't the majority case (though still all too common).
jlgreco 13y ago
> Oh, I grew up in the same times, in the same general area, with just a little whee bit of difference: I'm aspergers, I'm socially anxious, and I quite clearly remember that most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me. It seems a rather "Harrison Bergeron" to disparage the sort of unsupervised and unrestrained play that martythemaniak is talking about just because some fraction of children are ill-equipped to participate in it.
- benihana 13y ago
  I'd argue it's very narcissistic and very un-empathetic.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Me, or him? I sympathize with the plight of children who can't interact with other children in that way. What I don't do is think that the play of other children should be curtailed to accommodate the others. I don't think this is narcissistic of me; I don't have any dog in this fight as I don't have children and am not a child myself.
- r00fus 13y ago
  I'm not sure how to take this, but the book epoused the attitude that "everyone treated equally" could lead to unforeseen consequences (i.e., 214th and later amendments to the Constitution). I don't think that LaGrange would ever want forced equality. He's just adding perspective. And I think it's fair to say that kids will just find ways to have fun, either with tablets or without. In one of our in-groups we hang out with occasionally, I've seen kids grow through the past 10 years. About 2-3 years ago, they started showing up to parties/events with iPads. Now they don't (even their little brothers sisters). Sometimes they were crowded around the Wii. Nowadays they aren't (again also the littler ones). Kids will find ways to have fun with each other, and make use of their spare time. I don't think technology and the proliferation of digital toys are poisoning them. I think the lack of free time in general in our modern society is more pernicious (both for kids and their parents). Free time is a resource that is precious even for kids - give them this and they'll turn out ok.

martythemaniak 13y ago

> most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me. I'm sorry for your experience, but that's absolutely not what I meant, nor what happened. "Fighting" as I said there was actually things like snowball fights in the winter or paper-cone-in-tube or soft/rotten-fruit-in-sligshot fights in the summer, and always in a group-vs-group setting. I am in fact your fairly typical shy introverted bookish geek and the reason I think so highly of this type of play is precisely because it allowed me to overcome these tendencies and be a normal kid. My real worry here isn't that kids today aren't doing the exact same things I did. It's that they don't have the option to do certain things anymore - things which may in fact be extremely valuable. What I described in my OP wasn't false, but it wasn't complete - I also spent much time playing Legos, reading books, "technical activities" with my dad's tools. Better or worse, one thing I can definitely say is my nephew has far fewer options and choices than I did at his age.

LaGrange 13y ago
> "Fighting" as I said there was actually things like snowball fights in the winter or paper-cone-in-tube or soft/rotten-fruit-in-sligshot fights in the summer, and always in a group-vs-group setting. That was always what the less lucky kids were told when they complained. And then painted as spoil-sports until they stopped complaining to avoid embarrassment. > It's that they don't have the option to do certain things anymore - things which may in fact be extremely valuable. I don't know about your specific family, but in general, they have far, far more options, up to and including extreme sports. Pretty sure I didn't know any kid that could try climbing or spelunking in the eighties.
- pyre 13y ago
  Maybe we're talking about the difference between "generalist" and "specialist" here? It seems like if a child decides to participate in such narrowly focused activities, it could be at the expense of being exposed to different sorts of people and getting a more all-encompassing world view.
  - LaGrange 13y ago
    Too bad they often try a bunch of them before they settle, then, if they do, right? It's not like you can fill your entire week with dancing lessons and survive for long.
    - pyre 13y ago
      I was just putting forth an idea. There was no need to reach right for the sarcasm and add copious amounts of it. > It's not like you can fill your entire week with dancing lessons and survive for long. Maybe you haven't seen people that have been doing X (for various values of X) since they were 5 or 6 (e.g. Tiger Woods, gymnasts, hardcore ballerinas, etc).
      - LaGrange 13y ago
        Which has been happening since pretty much forever, and thankfully isn't the majority case (though still all too common).

jlgreco 13y ago

> Oh, I grew up in the same times, in the same general area, with just a little whee bit of difference: I'm aspergers, I'm socially anxious, and I quite clearly remember that most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me. It seems a rather "Harrison Bergeron" to disparage the sort of unsupervised and unrestrained play that martythemaniak is talking about just because some fraction of children are ill-equipped to participate in it.

benihana 13y ago
I'd argue it's very narcissistic and very un-empathetic.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Me, or him? I sympathize with the plight of children who can't interact with other children in that way. What I don't do is think that the play of other children should be curtailed to accommodate the others. I don't think this is narcissistic of me; I don't have any dog in this fight as I don't have children and am not a child myself.
r00fus 13y ago
I'm not sure how to take this, but the book epoused the attitude that "everyone treated equally" could lead to unforeseen consequences (i.e., 214th and later amendments to the Constitution). I don't think that LaGrange would ever want forced equality. He's just adding perspective. And I think it's fair to say that kids will just find ways to have fun, either with tablets or without. In one of our in-groups we hang out with occasionally, I've seen kids grow through the past 10 years. About 2-3 years ago, they started showing up to parties/events with iPads. Now they don't (even their little brothers sisters). Sometimes they were crowded around the Wii. Nowadays they aren't (again also the littler ones). Kids will find ways to have fun with each other, and make use of their spare time. I don't think technology and the proliferation of digital toys are poisoning them. I think the lack of free time in general in our modern society is more pernicious (both for kids and their parents). Free time is a resource that is precious even for kids - give them this and they'll turn out ok.