
Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent - igonvalue
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html
======
harryf
What I've seen with my kids (under 10) is when they get an hour of phone or
tablet, after they have to give it up again, they become very aggressive and
behave in a manner which is comparable to someone with a chemical addiction.
That usually lasts 10-15 minutes then they calm down and start acting like
themselves again. Talking to other parents they report similar behavior

There's something about shifting your attention from one "space" to "another"
( game vs. real life ) that kids under 10 seem to particularly struggle with.

And as a parent that they become so aggressive when making that context switch
tells me there's something I need to watch closely and control, despite the
fact that it's great to have my kids silently occupied and leaving me to get
stuff done.

~~~
danielweber
I've noticed this, even at older ages. My early teen son turns into a
downright asshole if he's online and then told (with ample warning) that it's
time for dinner. Without the device, he's extremely pleasant.

~~~
jkaunisv1
I can still remember this sort of situation when I was a teenager playing
CounterStrike every day. For one thing, my mom would give me "ample warning"
but without checking that I was paying attention to her first. When your focus
is 100% on a game it's easy to not notice and even to answer without noticing
what was said to you. Basically say whatever would make her go away the
fastest and then get back to the game. Then when dinner truly was ready and
she interrupted me abruptly, it was frustrating because I never got (in my
head) proper notification. Often I would actually not remember her giving me a
heads up, it was that small a blip in my focus. She called it selective
hearing.

I think those of us who spend a lot of time online/on devices project our
consciousness into the machine and it takes more effort to context switch out
of that. So we get angry when we're torn out without the chance to context
switch at our own pace. For what it's worth, I get the same way when I'm deep
into reading a book so I wouldn't project this problem on only high
technology.

~~~
dllthomas
It would be nice if there was a good way to queue up requests for someone's
next context switch (end of CS round, as a trivial example).

------
selmnoo
I would not so easily put so much stock or value in the way Steve Jobs did
things as a parent or even as a human being. This is the guy who unfortunately
refused to pay child support (while being more than able to) as well as refuse
to acknowledge the existence of his daughter (ignoring all her contact efforts
and so on). And then there's that whole thing with corruption at unholy levels
and treating his employees and people in general like crap.

~~~
graeme
This comment really shouldn't be at the top. The author appears to have read
only the headline, and has taken the opportunity to turn the thread into a
discussion of Steve Jobs.

The topic of the article was screen time for children. It quoted examples of
many technologists who limit screen time. Steve Jobs was just "click bait".

At HN, we should be beyond merely commenting on headlines. I would far prefer
the top comment to be a discussion of the merits of the article and the issues
raised.

~~~
idlewords
Indeed! I dropped my monocle into my bone china cup when I saw that this was
the top comment. There are standards to maintain here at Hacker Towers.

~~~
enroxorz
Bully! _snorts cocaine off of a silver plate held my a kangaroo servent-man_

------
mootothemax
I have conflicting feelings about this.

On the one hand, giving entertainment screens to children has the potential to
create all kinds of bad habits.

On the other, I spent hours upon hours teaching myself to program on my Atari
ST, plus learning about how computers work from it, and nowadays I've made a
pretty good living from my passion for IT.

(That's not to say that I didn't also spend many, many hours gaming, or
generally wasting time.)

As with most things in life, I think we can only say that the extreme ends are
unlikely to be good, and the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

~~~
joezydeco
But there's a difference here.

Tablets and similar items, including Gameboys and the like, are consumption
devices. Playing games, watching Netflix, reading Facebook. It's all passive
entertainment.

Teaching yourself to code on a home PC, that's _way_ different.

------
norswap
> The dangers he is referring to include exposure to harmful content like
> pornography, bullying from other kids, and perhaps worse of all, becoming
> addicted to their devices, just like their parents.

I threw up a little bit while reading this. Prohibiting rather than engaging
in meaningful discussion is a surefire way to cause harm (it's the same thing
with alcohol, for instance); bullying is a fact of life, and learning to deal
with it is a valuable life lesson. And yes, you can spend too much time on
your device. Calling it addiction, with all it entails, is a step I wouldn't
make. It's 2014, I thought the sillyness about being addicted to video games
and computer was over. Apparently not.

~~~
fecklessyouth
>It's 2014, I thought the sillyness about being addicted to video games and
computer was over. Apparently not.

It's never going to be over, as long as young children have access to
technology.

HN seems to preach a perverse gospel about this subject: that you should never
limit a child's technology access, because not only will nothing bad come out
of, but in fact, it will make them more capable. It will turn them into
developers and engineers!

I'm guessing the reason HN thinks this way is because they themselves got into
technology in the first place through such avenues: dicking around as a kid,
sometimes with the help of their parents, sometimes contrary to their wishes.
If THEY had been restricted, they wouldn't be where they are today.

But this reason suffers from selection bias. While people like yourself
(unless I'm misreading you. In which case, substitute the stereotypical HN
user for yourself) may have used videogames and computer access as a spring
board for your career, I'm willing to wager that you are minority among
videogame and computer-saavy youth.* You are a bigger majority, however, on
HN, and in the tech world in general, so such reasoning becomes canon without
being subject to enough criticism. Plenty of technologists were gamers, but
not all gamers become technologists. It's just that the former dominate here.

*I don't have any statistics on hand to support this. But since the videogame industry is as big (and growing) as it is, where are the rising mountains of developers and engineers that supposedly spring from it? Why aren't girls, who spend comparable time with technology, catching the wave as well?

My little brother has been addicted to Minecraft for the past 2 years. I keep
waiting for him to "discover" something else as a result of it. To get into
programming, or design, or architecture, or something more constructive. Hell,
even building things in Minecraft would be more productive than what he does
now: go on PvP servers and throw snowballs at people--for 12 hours a day, if
my parents let him. He's tried programming lessons a few times, but he usually
gives up, because learning a new skill is harder than playing (even difficult)
games. He lacks the trait of perseverance. And he's not going to learn it by
playing videogames.

~~~
graeme
>Plenty of technologists were gamers, but not all gamers become technologists.
It's just that the former dominate here.

I was a gamer, and didn't become a technologist. I had no idea what a computer
program was!

(If that sounds silly, consider all the things you see every day without
understanding)

Mostly, my gaming experience was a write-off. It stunted my social
development, blocked me from doing more interesting activities, and
contributed very little to my well-being.

I may have learned some strategic thinking from games like Starcraft, which I
think has carried over to entrepreneurship. But oh, how I wish I could get
that time back.

Or, I wish someone had shown me a terminal and what it could do. One glimpse
would have been enough.

------
ceejayoz
I don't see Angry Birds being much different than doing a puzzle on the floor,
and my daughter has taught herself to read at a third grade level at age 5 by
watching YouTube phonics videos and the like (along with picking up sign
language).

"Screen time" on devices is different from screen time on TVs.

~~~
slashedzero
> I don't see Angry Birds being much different than doing a puzzle on the
> floor,

You're missing a huge part of tactile development going on when she's playing
a puzzle on the floor vs. touching a flat surface. The fine motor skills
involved with physically handling a puzzle will come in handy later, not to
mention that there is an element of combining tactile response with mental
strategy missing on the iPad.

~~~
chillingeffect
Yup, plus the style of recall for a puzzle is tree-like.

The puzzle is a "natural" form, that encourages "natural" skills. Whereas
Angry Birds is an addictive game pattern. Any skills it "teaches" are
incidental to its commercial goals.

My point is invalid if the whole entire world turns into a giant
commercialized strip mall and recall no longer becomes a valued skill. :<

~~~
ceejayoz
Angry Birds is just a single example (and one that has him interested in the
physical versions). It's hardly the only option - plenty of creative puzzle
apps, reading apps, etc. are available and a lot of them are quite good.

That said, I'd say Angry Birds has given my son a lot of practice in
perseverance, problem solving, and not getting frustrated when something
doesn't work first time.

------
staunch
What kind of hack tries to peddle Steve Jobs' memory while explaining his
child rearing philosophy based on a single comment in a phone call to someone
he didn't know?

A NY Times hack.

------
jroseattle
We took a different approach from the parents in the article to technology
with our kids, and I think it was the right thing (for us).

My goals were to provide good exposure so that our kids would view technology
in a healthy way: tools to help them create and learn, devices that can bring
the world to them, and a healthy understanding that there are dangers beyond
our walls. I wanted them to be technologically astute, instead of taking an
aversion or negative view.

I wanted them to burn through the "magical" effect of tech early on. We put
desktop PCs in our kids' rooms when they were in 3rd grade (twins). I
completely controlled any outbound access they had (they knew nothing about
web browsers, so I removed those from access). And while we limited their
_unattended_ screen time, I also spent a good amount of time introducing them
to keyboards, mice, and applications. After a few months, both were up and
going with Minecraft. To keep things in the walls, I setup a private Minecraft
server to which they attached in the house so they could play with each other.

They've grown into 8th graders, and the desktop PCs have been replaced with
Macbooks, iPhones and Kindles. Sure, they use Snapchat and Instagram with
their friends, but by far they use the camera for videos and pictures. Those
things end up in iMovie or slideshows that they put together and distribute
over my Youtube account. They are voracious readers, pushing content through
their kindle at an alarming rate. These are now fundamental devices they use
in/for school projects and homework. They're good at it, to the point that
they often help their friends with troubleshooting.

As I said, our approach has worked for us. It has been a lot of work as well,
ensuring the kids aren't LatchKey 2.0, where the TV has been replaced by
something you can hold in your hands. We had to be committed to being
attentive and watchful, but we felt that was an investment in time that would
help our kids succeed in an increasingly connected world.

~~~
prawks
This is the approach I've always had in mind to take with my future children.
I hope they can have similarly successful results.

Any big learnings you found during the process which you didn't anticipate
starting out? I'm always interested in different perspectives and experiences
in raising children.

~~~
jroseattle
> Any big learnings you found during the process which you didn't anticipate
> starting out?

Always big learnings when it comes to rearing children.

Limiting in scope to my previous comment:

\- I started with the "basics", which had nothing to do with browsing the
internet (which came later.) Ease-of-use in services such as Google is a
nightmare when it comes to providing a safe environment for your kids to
explore. I think making the online world one of the latter components of
exposure is best; otherwise, kids can get lost really fast in it's expanse.
For anyone else following this approach, I'd say "keep it local".

\- Kids are _much_ more adept at technical adoption than adults. It speeds up
conversations very quickly. For anyone else following this approach, I'd say
be prepared to see what's coming. It will happen much faster than you might
expect.

------
rayiner
Most articles on how to raise your kids are crap, in the same vein as all
those articles that told you salt would raise your blood pressure or eggs
would raise your cholesterol levels. I didn't realize until I became one that
parents are faced with a mountain of old wives tales, superstitions, luddism,
etc, when it comes to their kids.

We're 'high tech' parents, and it works great. Our toddler has a 64GB iPad,
and uses it to watch Doc McStuffins, Veggie Tales, etc. Our generation grew up
in front of the TV, and the iPad is way better. It let's us control her
exposure to content and pernicious advertising, for example.

------
davidw
> Evan Williams, a founder of Blogger, Twitter and Medium, and his wife, Sara
> Williams, said that in lieu of iPads, their two young boys have hundreds of
> books (yes, physical ones) that they can pick up and read anytime.

One of the things that pains me a great deal about buying books for the Kindle
is that they won't be sitting around the house for my kids to look at one day.

However, given what it costs to order a physical book in English over here in
Italy, Kindle books make way more sense economically.

------
mncolinlee
I had limited screen time as a child, but I had up to two hours per day on our
Radio Shack TRS-80. This meant I was copying and then writing my own BASIC
programs at age six.

I wonder how the situation would be different if iPads and computers nowadays
didn't spoon feed our children an unlimited amount of instant gratification--
entertainment superior to what they could likely create themselves through
play and creativity.

------
zak_mc_kracken
For someone who built his fame and fortune on technology, Steve Jobs was
surprisingly anti-tech and anti-learning in many ways.

Another example of this is that he didn't trust traditional medicine and he
decided to fight his then benign cancer with some unproven fruit based diet.
One year later, his cancer had progressed to the point of being terminal and
even traditional medicine could no longer save him then.

------
kohanz
_Yet these tech C.E.O.’s seem to know something that the rest of us don’t._

Even if I might agree with this parenting style. I find the perspective here
to a bit a condescending - implying that because tech CEO's are doing it, it
must be something that others "don't know". What does the qualification of
tech CEO have _anything_ to do with parenting?!

~~~
corin_
Certainly sounds condescending, but there's is a valid point if they worded it
better - the CEOs may not _know_ better but they think they do, in that
they're the exception to the rule of "if you can both afford and understand
<phones, tablets, TVs, etc.>, your kids will enjoy that technology" (obviously
not the only exception, but they're an exception).

So unless you're also that sort of person, they either know something the rest
of us don't or they at least have an opinion on the subject that the rest of
us don't.

~~~
kohanz
I disagree with the premise that this line of thinking is somehow exclusive or
original to tech CEO's though. At least in my own experience, most parents I
know can afford tech, but limit it in some way. Unfettered access to tech for
young children seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, in my
experience.

------
jayvanguard
Re: CEOs tending to limit their kids "screen time" more than the average
parent.

A more likely explanation is that CEOs don't see much of their children so
they try to exercise control when they are around. Likewise their kids are
probably more prone to being out of control since they are less supervised.

That or the article is just based on his confirmation bias.

------
fredrikcarno
Interesting thread.. I've got twin boys that now are 2 years old. We made the
descision to get rid of the tv, computers and smart phones when they were
born. Now they are not that interested if you show them a tablet, they want to
go outside and play instead. A extra upside is the amount of extra time you
get each day

------
rokhayakebe
The sad part of this conversation is adults should be first to follow this
advice.

Have you been out in the mall lately? How about a restaurant? How about just
walking the streets? Un()Believable, yet.

------
sjtrny
> The dangers he is referring to include exposure to harmful content like
> pornography

The linked article in the tele doesn't even mention porn. Furthermore since
when is it harmful to see people participating in sex acts? What a joke.

~~~
chillingeffect
> when is it harmful to see people participating in sex acts?

I'm no conservative, but kids copy what they see, even before they understand
language and responsibility. There are no absolutes, but it's wise to moderate
showing sex acts to children until it's likely they won't repeat it
responsibly.

------
michaelochurch
Steve Jobs is a terrible example. He gets a lot of love for being a Buddhist
(which is, of the world religions, the one I am closest to) and having, for a
businessman, a 99th-percentile design sense. In actuality, he was a huge
dickhead. I could overlook his personal issues (you'll never get to the bottom
of a stranger's personal life, to try is useless gossip) but the collusion
with Eric Schmidt cemented my contempt for the man, co-religionist or no. I
wish he had lived two years more to see that his legacy would be a great
crime, not the iPhone.

When you're 13, tech is _fun_. Dragon Warrior! Final Fantasy! Tales of
Phantasia! I'm sure that anyone born before 1965 or after 1990 is going to be
taking me on faith, but these games were _awesome_.

When you're 19, tech is _even more fun_ because you actually learn how things
work and discover mind-bending ways of solving problems. Assembly code! C!
Lisps! Machine learning! Haskell!

When you're 25, tech is _important_ because it holds the power to solve some
of humanity's most pressing issues. We may get to a point where we can prolong
life as long as people wish at 1/100 the cost of the current expense-sink we
call "health care". We may avert a global warming catastrophe with clean
nuclear power (thorium fission? fusion?) We might escape this disgusting
arrangement in which one nation being rich requires others to be poor, and
arrive at a post-scarcity world in the next few decades. If any of this
happens, technology will play a key role.

After 30, you realize that while technology still can be fun and holds promise
and importance, _the tech industry_ is run by megalomaniac 21st-century robber
barons with the ethical fibre of Zombie Hitler's taint sweat. Technology
becomes just _work_ , for most people.

When they see their kids addicted to lit screens and possibly falling into the
in-app purchase suckholes that they spent months of their life optimizing for
addictiveness and "whale" recruiting, well... they have reasons to be
concerned. _Stay away from that shit! I helped cook it!_

~~~
yuhong
On Eric Schmidt:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623873)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8156005](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8156005)

~~~
nostrademons
I'm curious what point you're trying to make by linking my comment, because I
don't think it means what you think it means. I actually really enjoyed
working at Google when Eric was CEO, and I can respect Larry's Google as well
even though I choose not to work there. My comment was intended to illustrate
the difference in culture under the two CEOs, as well as the choices they have
to make in response to the outside environment, and not as a value judgment on
those choices.

~~~
yuhong
"but the collusion with Eric Schmidt cemented my contempt for the man"

~~~
nostrademons
Still don't get it. That's mchurch's line, and it's not echoed in any of the
comments (except possibly Masoud's on Piaw Na's G+ entry) you linked.

~~~
yuhong
I know, but it is related to the same topic.

------
guard-of-terra
Sucks to be their kids. Being denied of something other kids take for granted
should surely ruin child's esteem.

------
albeva
"harmful content like pornography" LOL. Think of the Children! :D

