
All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed - tokenadult
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/all-work-and-no-play-why-your-kids-are-more-anxious-depressed/246422/
======
Tsagadai
I've talked about this with friends before and many of them were amazed at the
amount of freedom I was given as a child. From about age 6 or 7, I was allowed
to roam with local children until the street lights came on and as long as we
stayed in a group. If I was late I would not be allowed out the next day, or
longer depending on how late. Most of the other neighbourhood parents didn't
really pay much attention to what their kids got up to (it wasn't an affluent
area) unless it was illegal or ridiculously dangerous (bamboo blackpowder
cannons fits into that category). We would go into forests, creeks and
occasionally get all the way to the beach (about 5 kilometers from our
neighbourhood). Most afternoons would be spent building things or planning
something. I even taught other children how to fix computers so we could play
games. I'm only in my mid-twenties so this isn't one of those, "back in my
day..." stories but I rarely hear of similar experiences from anyone under 30.
Has anyone else had a similar upbringing or have you raised your children with
actual free time /and/ personal accountability for their actions?

~~~
danmaz74
In my day - I'm 37 - I remember being VERY free in my play time. We didn't do
bamboo blackpowder cannons, but we did tin foil blackpowder rockets, and no
adult complained - because they didn't need to know. But I was raised up in
smallish, very safe cities. Now I live in a big city (Rome), I have a little
daughter and I would be worried to let her go around as freely when the time
will come.

One of the reasons I'm using almost all my free time to work on my
bootstrapped startup ideas is to be able to move to a little city and still be
able to do what I like while earning enough money, so that I could hopefully
give my daughter that same freedom that I got - if my wife allows that!

~~~
roel_v
But do you think that moving to a small village to give children the
opportunity to play outside will outweigh the disadvantages of living in such
a village? I grew up in a small village and I feel like I missed out on a lot
because of it:

\- Only limited access to like-minded children (i.e., rather nerdy people who
like to actually design and properly build tree houses rather than putting
together some old sheets and then move into 'let's attack the tree hut' mode)

\- Access to intellectually stimulating activities

\- A proper library (maybe less important with the internet nowadays)

\- Role models who aren't factory workers or construction workers (nothing
wrong with them, but being exposed to a variety of role models is the key - I
didn't really get the concept of an office job until I was in my early teens).

I have no desire to move back to such an environment, and even less desire to
let my daughter grow up in it. Not saying that cities are perfect either, just
that I don't think the advantages of villages outweigh the disadvantages.

~~~
danmaz74
I'm not talking about a small village, but a small city: The cities where I
grew up were 100k and 30k residents respectively, and very quiet.

It's true that it is more difficult to find like-minded friends and more
intellectually stimulating activities there, but I think that that would only
become a concern when you're over 13 or something, and there's a lot of time
for that. Big libraries (which I missed back in the day) wouldn't be a problem
today, and as for role models, that wouldn't be a problem in that kind of city
I'm talking about.

Of course, there is no perfect choice, but in my opinion a small city would be
the best compromise. Then, only time will tell...

~~~
davidw
I think smallish university cities are a good bet. They have enough going on
to make them interesting, but aren't full-on big cities with all of their
problems.

In Italy, places like Padova, Pavia and Pisa - back in the US, places like
Eugene, Oregon or Boulder, Colorado (although I've never been there) may
qualify.

~~~
seltzered_
Agreed. Another nice example is new paltz, new york (has a small university
there). It's easy to walk to from the university through the neighborhood to
the main street for a slice of pizza.

I also recall where rensellaer poly is to be a nice little town next to the
university.

I can't think of many towns in Texas that offer a small university town
without being so spread out parents don't have to worry about cars though.

Boulder is also really nice near campus (getting sprawlish outside it),
mountain hikes are a bike ride away.

------
kleiba
_The mothers noted that they restricted their own children's outdoor play
because of safety concerns, a fact echoed in other surveys where parents
mentioned child predators, road traffic, and bullies as reasons for
restricting their children's outdoor play._

I've always wondered if there is any factual underpinning that would license
such thinking from mothers. I am not sure the threats to children (besides
road traffic) have risen so strongly over the last decades, but media coverage
may have, creating the impression that the world has become a (more) dangerous
place for kids.

However, the change over recent year is not as important as the actual current
status, i.e., the answer to a question like: "If you allow your kid to play
outdoors, what is the likelihood that it will suffer harm from any of the
mentioned sources." (It doesn't matter if it was 50% percent less 50 years
ago, if it's still very low today.)

Police statistics should provide the data for an initial estimation of such
numbers, which of course would have to be conditioned further, e.g., for
neighborhood etc.

But of course, people don't always behave rationally, so having such
information - even if it should suggest that the danger is not higher than it
was during their own childhood - is likely to have zero impact on parents.

~~~
rahoulb
Agreed - traffic is an issue.

But I'm convinced that the threat from "predators" is minimal, yet I still
find it really hard to let my kids just go out and play. Luckily both myself
and next door have decent sized gardens, so they get to run around outside all
they want. But it's not the same as when I used to go out on my bike all day
and not return home till I was hungry.

~~~
mgkimsal
And yet, today, kids can have a cell phone and call from any location around -
possibly even be monitored with a tracking signal as to their whereabouts. The
ability to _know_ where a kid is down to the meter is within almost everyone's
reach, and yet we're _more_ scared about letting kids go out and wander
around.

Going out as a kid in the 70s and 80s, I usually had to tell someone what
friend's house I'd be at, and was given times (either 'dinner' or '8pm'
usually) to be home at, but usually had pretty free reign. I normally stayed
within a mile or so of the house, but there were plenty of places to go -
small arcades, shops, friends, school playgrounds, etc. My parents had no way
of knowing if I was at place X, Y or Z, unless I called home. No cell phones,
sms, etc. But we managed just fine.

------
ericabiz
The scariest part of the article:

"The researchers found that compared to 1981, children in 1997 spent less time
in play and had less free time. They spent [...] 168 percent more time
shopping with parents."

Wow. We're teaching our children to be good little consumers, but failing them
in the areas that really matter.

Wake up, unplug your TV, and stop going to the mall. For the children.

~~~
kleiba
That might be one reason, but I suspect that another point in the article
might serve as an alternative explanation: parents have become more and more
(over?)-protective of their children. So they won't leave them at home even
for 30 minutes when they have to go shopping. But that's pure speculation.

~~~
MisterMerkin
Don't forget that both parents work in many more families between the studies.
Maybe people are just getting time in with their kids when they can and that
includes errands.

------
uros643
The article's thesis is the polar opposite of my intuition on the matter: "All
Play and No Work: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed".

Knowing how to work (i.e. be proactive in their survival) allows kids to feel
in control of their life. I equate ability to work with cognitive discipline,
and note that depression is easy to succumb to when one is too weak for a
change of attitude.

I propose such potential sources of work-shyness as: the illusory sense of
accomplishment from video games; hedonism as default response to any emotional
problem; escape into internet culture does not condition one's mind for what
matters for survival in the real world; internet porn; last but not least,
parents may not be able to communicate the appropriate wisdom. In short, too
many stupefying distractions of the fast food variety, not enough structure.

It is better for kids to learn to discipline themselves as early on as
possible, since it is harder to unlearn old habits as they grow older. It
could make the difference between an ADHD diagnosis or not :)

Most importantly, work is a source of happiness, too.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Useless and unresultative work is a source of mind boggling, crazy driving,
heart breaking unhappiness.

And children are only allowed to that kinds of work.

When I was a child, my only agenda was that I wanted everybody around to stop
bothering me so I would do what I wanted (and I wanted to read books and
tinker with my PC).

I hated school work (which according to the article grew 145 percent), I hated
school, I still loathe it and I would try and support anyone who argues its
questionability, like the parent article.

(Happily for me I mostly got what I wanted, but I wasn't an american kid)

Children should be doing what they want, left mostly to themselves.

And by the way, you say ADHD as if it was something bad.

~~~
fleitz
If you dislike the school system you'll love reading John Taylor Gatto.

ADHD is normal in a school setting, it's one of the most boring institutions
on the planet, on par with a city jail.

I met the criteria for ADHD. However, when you have to give children the same
class of drugs that cause people to find credit fraud interesting you know
something is wrong with the school system and not the kids.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextroamphetamine> This is what they had my
friend on in Grade 7. Insanity.

"A meth user can stay awake for several days at a time, and is often content
to perform repetitive tasks -- even having the patience to stitch together
shredded documents."

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4460349/ns/technology_and_scienc...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4460349/ns/technology_and_science-
security/t/meth-connection-identity-theft/#.TpaYWd4r2so)

~~~
Tichy
Thanks for the book suggestion, ordered.

------
cynest
A few points:

I know a 6th-grade teacher who complains about kids not having any time for
homework because they participate in non-school sports. This is someone who
coaches football/wrestling and has had a least one child play in the majors.
The level of emphasis put on activities like these is ridiculous.

>"Individuals suffering from anxiety disorders describe losing emotional
control as one of their greatest fears. They are afraid of their own fear, and
therefore small degrees of fear generated by mildly threatening situations
lead to high degrees of fear generated by the person's fear of losing
control."

This is absolutely correct.

Finally, I wonder how much parental social lives relate to the issue of
isolation. My parents did not have any local friends when I was growing up and
I feel this may have contributed to my social isolation during that time.

edit:grammar

~~~
kleiba
I take it you're from the US? I lived in Germany a while ago where they
reduced the high school years from 9 to 8 in some states. Here, parents
complain about the opposite of what you observe, namely that the kids don't
have the time anymore to participate in extra-curricular activities such as
sport clubs, because the kids spend more time in school or doing homework.

So in both cases it seems that there's not enough time for both school work
and sports. But the focus of what is considered more important seems to be
different between the two countries.

~~~
cynest
Correct in your assumption. The particular area was Clovis, CA.

------
michaelpinto
Free form play is so critical to building up the imagination and creativity as
well. This shouldn't just include the amount of time given to this activity
but should even encompass the toys that we give kids.

~~~
tokenadult
An observation from the article that I can confirm is, "It is hard to find
groups of children outdoors at all, and, if you do find them, they are likely
to be wearing uniforms and following the directions of coaches while their
parents dutifully watch and cheer." Yes. For a few years I actually wondered
if the townhouse neighborhood in which I live had any children living in it
besides my own. It seemed the kids would come home from school and immediately
stay inside their houses, no matter how good the weather, and that they must
have been at daycare during the school holidays and not outdoors in the
neighborhood after that either. Only recently are there quite a few neighbor
children (typical age four or five) who play together regularly--usually on my
patch of lawn or on my driveway, oddly enough--in view of their parents' homes
but somewhat independently from their parents. Playing outside is very good
for children, and I have encouraged my children to play outside every day for
their whole lives. Our neighborhood is crime free, and my children walk to the
local public library whenever they like. (They can really go whenever they
like because they are homeschooled. My second son volunteers at the library at
an hour when most other teenagers are in school.) Perhaps my children's free-
range lifestyle is beginning to influence the neighbors. I hope so.

From your post:

 _This shouldn't just include the amount of time given to this activity but
should even encompass the toys that we give kids._

One word: Legos. My sister gave my oldest son a set of Duplos for his second
birthday, and thus Lego mania was born in our household. We have more than
10,000 Lego pieces in our house from dozens of separately bought Lego sets,
and all four of my children love to spend time putting Lego pieces together,
especially when the weather doesn't make playing outside feasible, and they
also like to use the Lego constructions as characters in fantasy play with one
another. Recently my daughter, our youngest child, has been building elaborate
Zometool

<http://www.zometool.com/>

towers, and those are great fun for the kids too. I much prefer open-ended
toys to toys that have too much structure built in.

~~~
weichi
Trio's (Fisher Price) are a similar toy to legos, aimed at the 3-5 y.o. range.
The lid to the box is a board that the pieces snap into to help build up fun
stuff. We don't even really have than many of them (no more than 100 pieces)
but the variety of thing that my kids come up with is amazing ... factories,
airplanes, cargo ships, flashlight-holders, trucks, trains, farms, houses for
small stuffed animals, etc etc etc.

And you'd be surprised at how much fun 3-4 years old can have with laundry
baskets and small blankets. Throw in a few medium-sized cardboard boxes from
U-haul and it's pandemonium.

------
azelfrath
In the wise words of George Carlin: "When does a kid ever get to sit in the
yard with a stick anymore?"

~~~
wetbrain
Some of my best times were spent with a stick.

~~~
quizbiz
ah, the back yard

------
p2w
rant on----------

my reaction to the article: no shit! there have been books written on this
subject (i.e. Last Child in the Woods). we expect children to behave like
adults starting at about age 8 in the U.S. we over schedule them and expect
collegiate level study discipline at about age 11.

we have built an infrastructure that serves only to make people fatter and
more sedentary, moreover, we as technologists have facilitated, through such
shit-shows as facebook and my_space before it, the continued decline in actual
physical activity pursued by kids.

there's soo much culpability to go around on this topic that its hard to even
know where to begin. as a parent i am continually disgusted by how we as
adults abuse and destroy the childhood phase of life.

and we wonder why kids are so fucked these days and our obesity rates are
growing in near logarithmic(ok, maybe not quite logarithmic...) fashion...

rant off----------

------
quizbiz
I made a decision in middle school: I would stop going outside and I would
experiment in the computer lab instead. Eventually two friends started to join
me.

I never really learned how to play. It's a significant challenge to get myself
off the computer and out relaxing, exploring, and enjoying free time.

~~~
wetbrain
For you, that is play. It's something you enjoy, socially. You explored
computation instead of a park or creek.

Unless coding is stressful for you I don't see how that's different than kids
playing games outside. Though, it seems you implied that being on a computer
was not relaxing. In that case I'm straight wrong.

~~~
quizbiz
Not stressing nor relaxing.

------
nasmorn
My daughter is only 18 months but I noticed tat she is much more cautious when
I am away (10m is a lot for her). When she feels my physical presence she has
blind faith in my ability to keepher safe so she will jump of everything
because I will catch her. When she is alone she watches out for herself. I
sure hope that's something we can build on.

------
llcoolv
This article reminds me a bit of that TED talk some time ago:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steve_keil_a_manifesto_for...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steve_keil_a_manifesto_for_play_for_bulgaria_and_beyond.html)

------
pkulak
This article reminded me of this podcast I listed to recently:

[http://freakonomicsradio.com/hour-long-special-an-
economists...](http://freakonomicsradio.com/hour-long-special-an-economists-
guide-to-parenting.html)

It made many of the same points.

~~~
Tichy
Good stuff, thanks! I immediately ordered "Parentonomics" and "Selfish Reasons
To Have More Kids" that are referenced from the podcast.

------
chalst
Peter Gray, the psychologist whose work is the basis for this Atlantic piece,
coauthored a study of a school with non-compulsory classing in 1986:

[http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wpcontent/uploads/2008/...](http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wpcontent/uploads/2008/11/Gray01.pdf)

Democratic Schooling: What happens to young people who have charge of their
own education?

The paper compares the post-school accomplishments of two groups of students
post-school.

------
nhebb
_"The researchers found that, including computer play, children in 1997 spent
only about eleven hours per week at play."_

I'm sure it depends on where you live. In my neighborhood, kids are out
playing all the time. I don't know where the study participants lived, but
given that the researcher was based out of Boston College, I wonder whether
this is one of those East Coast - West Coast lifestyle differences.

------
aheilbut
This doesn't just apply to children.

~~~
Hisoka
I agree. I remember the day when you could drop by a friend's house to chill
w/o calling beforehand, or sending a text message or IM. or the days when you
could just drop by the park and have a good chance of meeting a couple of
buddies there. Everything now seems so structured. Have to arrange meetups
with friends. Have to arrange this or that. And lots of socializing happens
after work, where the intention is to just get drunk, and forget about the
day.

------
michaelochurch
American society is built to tear people down, to make 10 people so sick that
9 of them die and then to crown the other one king. This isn't an accidental
malfunction; it's the _purpose_ of the damn thing. It starts with children. At
least Scarface had the decency not to involve kids.

The "career game", which now begins in childhood, is a war of attrition. Look
at the people running major, Fortune 500 companies? Are they the best and the
brightest? Are they our society's most talented people or its most capable
leaders? Fuck no, obviously not. They're the ones who didn't develop chronic
puking disorders, severe panic attacks, lifelong back problems, RSIs and
socially crippling misanthropy after being thrown into a "pay-your-dues" war
of attrition with hundreds of other idiots and surviving the longest in it.
That's how they got where they are-- not leadership, not creativity, not any
kind of talent whatsoever, but making it through more years of soul-raping
corporate grunt work than their competitors could survive.

We're now in a state where the constant warfare begins in fucking _preschool_.
This is what we get. The only way out is to radically reshape society, and the
problem is that there are people currently in positions of great power who
will defend the status quo with everything they've got. Their problem, not
ours.

~~~
Hisoka
What is the root cause of this problem though? Is it just a natural result of
overpopulation + our natural tendency to be selfish? is it overpopulation +
the need to give up individual needs to support the whole? is it the natural
result of our biological instincts and we're just really fucked up species?

~~~
iqster
I don't think overpopulation is the core problem in the developed world. Some
developed countries have had to take on immigrants lest their populations
decrease. We have great systems to generate wealth, but they come at the price
of a massively skewed distribution.

