
I spent my career in tech, but wasn’t prepared for its effect on my kids - ALee
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2017/08/24/melinda-gates-i-spent-my-career-in-technology-i-wasnt-prepared-for-its-effect-on-my-kids/
======
citizenkeen
'One of my favorite things you can do is plan a “device-free dinner.”'

_A_ device free dinner? Why aren't all of them? These weird little "small
gestures" make me feel like people have lost control of their homes.

We have a landline expressly to give out to emergency contacts. And dinner is
tech free. Every night.

I think the main problem is tech has made everything _else_ easier, but
parenting harder, and parents just aren't prepared to fight the battles / put
in the work. A parent who is staring at Instagram when they're at the park
shouldn't be surprised that their kids wants screens, too.

~~~
careersuicide
I think this is the one thing about technology I'm old fashioned about (I roll
my eyes _hard_ when people say stuff like "You should delete your Facebook
account, you'll be better off."). If I'm eating food with someone else the
phone goes away. The only exception is if in the course of conversation an
easily googleable question is asked and both the other person/people and I are
actually interested in the answer instead of just guessing. But after that the
phone goes right back in my pocket. It's not a hard rule, but it's one I do
make a conscious effort to follow.

I've noticed that others are a lot less likely to pull out their phones and
stare while at the table if I don't do it myself. There's just something kinda
sad to me when I see couples at a niceish restaurant and neither person is
talking and both are looking at Facebook or Twitter and there's still food on
their plates. I know you can't extrapolate that to a person's entire
relationship, but it just seems kinda... unfortunate I guess.

~~~
jancsika
So the question that I don't know the answer to: would those couples have
engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to _them_ ) had
cellphones not existed? Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large
number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully
with others but would only _feign_ interest when the alibi of the cellphone
isn't available?

~~~
briankelly
Or a more optimistic view: it takes some effort to get to interesting
conversation; you have to go through some fakeish small talk to find a topic
worth discussing. Phones don't require that effort, they're the path of least
resistance.

~~~
msla
Smalltalk is ideally about finding a hook, a more interesting shared topic
which can support a more fulfilling conversation. Otherwise, it's just killing
time, and I daresay most here have more intellectually stimulating ways to
kill time.

The complexity is when people regard a lack of smalltalk as a chilly
isolation. I personally have been called stuck-up because I didn't engage in
smalltalk at school. Some cultures are more oriented to this than others.

------
mcone
This doesn't invalidate the article, but I feel the need to point out that the
author lives in a $63 million house with $80,000 worth of TV screens lining
the walls. "Anyone in the house can change the screens’ displays to their
favorite painting or photograph, in effect personalizing the room (via
lighting, temperature, and even decor) to the guest’s own flavor." [0]

They certainly didn't do themselves any favors when they built their house.

[0] [http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-
biggest/12-unbelieva...](http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-
biggest/12-unbelievable-facts-about-bill-gates-house/)

~~~
devmunchies
Yes, a "career in tech" and a tech-lifestyle are different things and you can
keep them separated. Based on the article and your comment it seems they have
more of a problem with the latter.

~~~
nxc18
This is big. I used to work for a manager who didn't even have a computer at
home (and no smartphone in 2013). She definitely excelled at keeping tech out
of her daily life.

~~~
provost
> She definitely excelled at keeping tech out of her daily life.

I'm curious -- what was she managing? Did she excel in her role?

------
luckydude
I'm a retired geek but I do tractor work, I just pulled a 14 hour day and I'm
having some wine so salt heavily.

In my opinion, the best thing you can do with kids is create boredom. If they
have access to a shop, or some lumber, they will start to build stuff. If kids
are bored and they turn that into building, that's the first step towards
getting into a good undergrad school. Building stuff is good.

The hard part, as parents, is creating that boredom. It's so easy to give them
the video game babysitter. I haven't done well at that. I wish I had some
magic statement that made that part easy but that part is super super hard.

The other thing I'd say about kids, and I hate this, really hate this, is
private school. It's better. My kids went and were on track to go to Los Gatos
High School which is a pretty decent school. For various reasons we found
kirby.org and both of my kids go there and it's a shit ton better. I hate
private schools, I think kids should experience the full range of people, not
just the rich kids that get into private schools, but wow, the private school
was so much better. So much better. Hugely better. My younger son who hates
that school, it's a nerd school and he's a jock, came to me and said "yeah, I
want to go there, it's better than Los Gatos". My older kid is applying to
schools and he has a shot at the ivys, that's all the private school.

I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been good
for my kids.

~~~
sedachv
> I'm ashamed to admit that I like private schools, but wow, have they been
> good for my kids.

Nothing to be ashamed about. You want the best for your children and private
schools get more money.

The problem is not that private schools are better, but that public schools
are so much worse. The people feeling shame should be the politicians who have
worked and continue to work to dismantle the public education system (in large
part motivated by religious fundamentalists seeking to replace public
education with voucher-based religious schools), and the people that vote for
them.

~~~
hueving
>in large part motivated by religious fundamentalists seeking to replace
public education with voucher-based religious schools

This can't possibly be the reason. Otherwise the bay area would have the best
schools in the nation because religion here is borderline illegal.

~~~
lotsofpulp
What is the relationship between proportion of non religious people and
quality of schools? There a few factors of bad schools, and along with it a
less than ideal group to classmates. Wealth seems to be the primary problem,
as it creates unstructured homes and poorly funded schools. Another problem is
religious parents who want to teach children that lack of evidence is a good
thing. The fact that the latter want to divert taxpayer funds for their own
agenda is also a cause for bad schools, as it diverts funds from public
schools.

------
Noos
"As its use has proliferated, so has its effects...

...the interviewer, apparently, asks young people (age 18 to 22 years old) the
following: whether men with the (device hidden) are human or not; whether they
are losing contact with reality; whether the relation between eyes and ears is
changing radically, whether they are psychotic or schizophrenic; whether they
are worried about the fate of humanity."

Can you guess the device? It's the Sony Walkman, and the time is the 1980s.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman_effect)

The arguments aren't new or novel. Hosoda was saying similar in the 1980s, and
the Walkman just as easily isolated people in the 1980s as phones do now. yet
somehow humanity survived.

Remember pagers? They were the device of choice in the 1990s for kids, and
they were pilloried just as bad, and even linked to drugs. There's a pretty
decent history of people panicking morally about new technologies and their
dehumanizing effects, and generally people have adapted more or less fine.

~~~
rlglwx
But maybe we have lost something also. As a truly social species, do we not
lose as a society when barriers are erected to sociability? The literature
certainly points to increased social isolation among adults and children. It
also makes the point that loneliness is a risk factor in things like dementia,
being overweight and a litany of other ailments. I reject the notion that
anything new is automatically better and has only net positive effects.

~~~
auganov
If anything, most of the addictive internet stimuli are social to some degree.
I do think there's an interesting analysis to be made of how social
connectedness got redistributed though. Both in terms of absolute
connectedness and who we're connected to.

~~~
curious_fella1
I would argue that these "social" parts of the internet are social in the
shallowest sense of the world. E.g., telling people how your life is without
actually talking to them. I would agree with above that these devices are
adding to (creating?) our social isolation.

~~~
auganov
I don't know the numbers. But if my intuition isn't completely wrong, and I'm
not a total outlier, most seem to spend a lot of time on Messenger (/other IM)
talking. Usually talking about content that is social in nature.

And quite frankly, most "real-life" interactions seem to be pretty much the
same. Just sitting around with phones talking about things you saw on the
[social] Internet.

~~~
robertlagrant
> And quite frankly, most "real-life" interactions seem to be pretty much the
> same. Just sitting around with phones talking about things you saw on the
> [social] Internet

This is a bit of a sad statement. What about conversation in a group, or
debate in a meeting at work, or communicating with your children, or any other
kind of relationship? Not everything can be showing each other videos, as
YouTube can already recommend better than humans can.

~~~
auganov
I'd imagine pre-Internet conversations were just as "sad". The main difference
was you couldn't "show" what you were talking about. Nowadays instead of
verbally describing a conversation with a friend, you'll just do a screenshot
dump.

Given how much social life basically migrated to the Internet, there aren't
that many happenings without a digital trace.

I mean you can't even discuss politics without talking about Trump's
twitter...[0]

Just yesterday grandma was showing me pics my aunt sent her. Pics she found on
cousin's Facebook profile.

[0] We already have political scandals that involve just email dumps, think
how cool things are going to get when we get dumps of facebook/slack/whatever
convos!

------
telesilla
The hardest thing for me has been young children begging, just begging, for
screen time. It's heartbreaking and I know very few parents who have managed
to make no mean no. I grew up watching TV but then, TV was mostly for adults
and I only paid attention those few hours it was child-friendly. I spent
almost the entire decade of the 90s without a television, only going to the
movies or the occasional VHS. Even today, while I'm on my computer for 8
hours/5 days a week, I read books when I stop work or cook or just sit and
talk. I turn off the screen, close the laptop and turn off wifi on my phone. I
worry for the attention span our kids won't have.

When was the last time you let a child just get bored, so they might entertain
themselves with their imagination?

On the other side, when we go out for walks or camping or away from tech, it
really doesn't take long for the kids to adjust.

~~~
mquander
I spent a lot of the decade of the 90s having the best times of my life
immersing myself in video games and the Internet, and looking back it seems to
me like I'm the better for it. I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking
to deny that to a kid who would have it.

~~~
koolba
> I think it should rightfully be heartbreaking to deny that to a kid who
> would have it.

I'm going to assume you haven't seen the steaming piles that are today's kid's
shows and apps. There's no way that crap is as mentally stimulating as content
from the 90s (or before). It's optimized for addiction.

And I'm not saying to cut it off entirely. I'm just saying the new stuff is
universally terrible.

~~~
QAPereo
There's something really sinister about watching a toddler utterly engrossed
in someone unwrapping Kinder eggs, for _hours_. In the 90's, the internet
involved more than just slapping your palm against a screen and not blinking
for the rest of the afternoon, and TV was in limited supply. Today, you never
have to take a break if someone isn't there to teach you how, or even that you
should.

~~~
benologist
In the 90s we watched crap literally engineered to sell toys.

[http://www.retrodomination.com/master-of-your-universe-
the-s...](http://www.retrodomination.com/master-of-your-universe-the-story-of-
he-man/)

~~~
koolba
The difference I see is the addictiveness of on-demand. It's a constant drip
of endorphins not unlike chain smoking or a morphine line.

When we were children we had to wait till weekends to watch those special
weekend shows. We had to wake up early to watch all of them. Hell we even had
to pee or make a snack in the 3 minutes of commercials lest we miss the next
segment!

Nowadays you see kids watching all that crap all the time. Morning, noon, and
night. Parents justify it as "educational content" or they just want some
quiet time. But you have children literally sitting on the shitter for an hour
watching an iPhone.

I'm not expert on raising kids and I'm not saying my generation was perfect
(far from it!), but that can't be good.

------
otakucode
I got Internet access in 1990 when I was 12 years old. Completely unfettered,
unmonitored, unlimited in any way. And I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Certainly many, if not most, kids would end up obsessing over social status
and gossip and similar things. That has nothing to do with technology and
absolutely everything to do with how they deal with their life in general.
They're encouraged to avoid taking an intellectual approach to life, to never
question or doubt their emotional impulses (indeed taught that those impulses
are more trustworthy and 'pure' than conclusions reached intellectually).
They're the kids that have always been popular, the bullies and the kids that
get DUIs before out of high school. You can't protect them from themselves
through any means if you're not willing to address their way of living.

And for the kids that aren't destined to live an adolescence of bickering and
strife, they will flourish with access to the whole of human knowledge and
ability to interact with online communities as an equal, without anyone
knowing their age unless they choose to reveal it.

~~~
mcone
> That has nothing to do with technology and absolutely everything to do with
> how they deal with their life in general.

With all due respect, accessing the internet today is nothing like what it was
in 1990. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There's a huge difference
between accessing a BBS with a modem and pulling an iPhone out your pocket and
pulling up Facebook's newsfeed with a couple taps of your finger. These
applications are _designed_ to be addictive, and people's unfettered ability
to access them anywhere enables their addictions. The physical and technical
barriers that limited your access in 1990 are long gone.

~~~
otakucode
You are right, it is certainly quite a bit different. I'm not sure how
material the differences are though. For what it's worth, I had access to BBS'
prior to that and had already enjoyed discussing things with adults as an
equal before getting a dialup account on a local university mainframe.
Everything was done through a shell account, telnet and gopher and similar. I
mean, I was still able to quite easily find myself to alt.binaries.tasteless
and find extreme porn and all that sort of stuff.

Those things like Facebook and such that are designed to be addictive are only
addictive to the types of people who find that kind of thing alluring. People
who seek social validation whether than evaluating themselves for themselves
can not be protected from that tendency. And that is, whether we like it or
not, the foundation of modern society. It is an inevitable consequence that
such people will spend their lives drowned in neurotic worry. It's not
particularly new, and the systems that make engaging in it so easy also make
leaving that sort of thinking behind if a person wishes to do so.

Ultimately, though, consider the kid. If the kid is a social butterfly, what
effect is withholding tech from them going to have? They're going to be made
bitter, probably be significantly sidelined in their social circles - the
exact place they derive every ounce of their self worth. It wouldn't exactly
be a pretty alternative.

~~~
mcone
I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part. I guess the big
question here is whether or not parents can or should teach their children
self-control. As a parent, should I just give my child access to everything
and hope for the best? Or should I restrict access and hope they don't become
bitter hermits? :)

~~~
williamscales
I guess the real answer is probably somewhere in between - restrict at first
and loosen restrictions as you see fit. Are there a lot of examples of how to
do this effectively? It's a question I wonder about.

------
SunnyCanuck
Have two kids, 14/12\. They've grown up as fully connected kids, have always
had access to their own devices, never more than a year or two behind the Big
Now. We have never imposed "limits for the sake of limits" on their screen
time. I find the idea preposterous, frankly.

We have no issue connecting with them, or doing family things together, or etc
etc etc. If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand,
you're not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million
miles from the nearest wireless cloud.

A lot of discussion around this issue is just tired rehashing of the same
complaints every generation over the past 150 years has said about the
incoming generation. Some of y'all in here already sound like grandparents,
lol.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>We have no issue connecting with them, or //

It's good that all people are exactly the same as you and your kids and that
this will therefore work for everyone, isn't it. /s

~~~
SunnyCanuck
I didn't make any such claim. If you'd like to respond to what was actually
written, feel free. :)

~~~
shakna
> If you can't connect with your kids when they have iPhone in hand, you're
> not going to be able to connect with your kids even if you're a million
> miles from the nearest wireless cloud.

It seems to me, you did make that claim.

~~~
robertlagrant
They were obviously implying that, yes. Then just backpedalling for some
strange reason.

------
bungie4
I have a 14 yr old and a 16 yr old step kids. They both live with their phones
in their hands.

I took them camping this past weekend. Fishing (caught 4 lake trout!), tubing,
camp fire .. it was a blast. Even though their was no cell and no wifi neither
of them could bare to put their phone down AND CHECK IT.

They had fun, but the second they weren't stimulated they were asking to take
a 40 minute boat ride (45mph!) to 'buy some ice cream' and get a cell signal.

Sad.

~~~
saint_fiasco
When I was 14 we always took plenty of snacks and a set of playing cards to
any vacation or outdoor activity.

It doesn't have anything to do with tech. Young people just get bored easily.

------
fzeroracer
When I was a teenager living with my parents we used to have a 'devices free'
dinner where we'd sit in silence and realize that an awkward teenager had
little in common to talk about with his out-of-touch parents. This was the
time where conversation was forced and often led to arguments. Though this
says more about my upbringing than the use of technology.

I think my point is that people see people looking at their phone while in
restaurants or people sitting silently and assuming that this void means that
the social aspect of the human race is doomed for destruction. You can't force
conversation and I've found with friends and even family now that the phone
has replaced forced discussions with something else. And you don't always need
to fill silence with conversation and nonsense.

Similarly I would say there's nothing wrong with lessening the use of
technology your kids use, but at the same time you can't just outright cut
them and yourself out from it. Instead you should adapt; give your kids
positive uses of the TV or their phone. If you try to force devices-free meals
your kid may think that bringing up issues of cyberbullying, facebook etc
might not be appropriate.

------
rayiner
It's a level-headed article. Parenting, like almost nothing else, turns
normal, intelligent, educated people into nutters. A rational, evidence-based
conversation about screen time, breastfeeding, pregnancy, birth, education,
and diet is increasingly impossible to have, especially with millennial
parents.

I just got my four year old an iPhone (with a data plan, because she realized
she didn't have wifi in the car). It's great! She can text me emojis and
Digital Touch messages, and Facetime me at work whenever she wants. It's fine:
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-
quarters/2017/jan/0...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-
quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not-
hype).

~~~
rmxt
If your takeaway from your link was that "it's fine" and not "that further
research is necessary"... you are going one step further than the article.

I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are
toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on
whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution.
Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the
"iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely
be near zero within a few months at that age.

What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early
smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time
during the day?

My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day
//

That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have
children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

~~~
saint_fiasco
On the contrary. Being able to communicate with parents at any time lets them
take more calculated risks and grow more independent.

If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would
not have been so terrifying.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time
would not have been so terrifying. //

Isn't it being "terrifying" and yet you having the gumption to do it what
builds your character and prepares you to take on things without having your
hand held? You were relying on your self - your skills, your organisation; and
not on your parents?

~~~
zimpenfish
"And now, little Jack, it's time to learn to swim. [throws child in pool]
C'mon, use your gumption! Stop drowning! And stop all that yelling. This is
building character!

Oh, he's drowned. Never mind! Better luck with little Fred!"

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's a lot of variables and fine balance at play, for sure.

Riding the bus alone for the first time: IIRC I was 11, but in a small
village, I'd already ride a few miles from home on my push bike.

I wouldn't expect death as the most likely outcome of a public transit ride at
this sort of age.

There's no one size fits all approach to raising children.

------
thebaer
The problem isn't with devices or necessarily "screen time" but with the types
of software on these devices. Social media is just 21st century TV -- that's
why it's harmful. The platforms that are ad-driven and engineered to be
addictive don't help us _connect_ in the same meaningful ways we get offline.

So as you might restrict your kids' time watching TV, parents should be aware
of the amount of time kids spend on _interactive TV_. Phones are particularly
demonized because their omnipresence encourages more consumption, but really
they're just the physical manifestation of the individual problems starting
_inside_ the devices. (Aside: I'd really be curious to know the amount of time
people spend passively consuming information on social media vs. creating /
contributing.)

And as an industry I think it's important we find other business models. We
build these apps for "stickiness" and "engagement" \-- seemingly innocuous
metrics that ultimately accumulate to form these larger societal issues.

------
mirimir
OK, so I'm pretty old. I remember, as a child, assuming that misadventures
would be largely forgotten by adulthood. I did many crazy things, but there's
no record, except for whatever people remember. OK, maybe a few FBI files
buried somewhere in Washington ;)

But now? There's a record of everything. Starting before birth, in many cases.
First words from smart toys. Social media. Game sites. Sales portals. Files
saved by peers.

And of course, that plus the exacerbation of psychosocial craziness.

------
kardianos
Technology (apps, phones, news) is a tool.

If tech distracts from children forming attachment to parents and other people
in their lives, then there is a problem full stop. The problem isn't "screen
time" or even "tech" directly.

Children (or adults) who have poor attachment (disorganized, dismissive, or
just lacks practice), they will be at much greater risk.

------
Mz
Parents face a bit of a catch-22: Those that have kids young are not all that
grown up themselves. Those that have them later have trouble remembering what
it is like to be a kid. They each have their upsides and downsides. There is
no _perfect_ time to become a parent. But, I think older parents have
challenges they didn't expect because being a parent is not like your day job.
Even if you do daycare, you get to put it down at the end of the day. A child
is responsibility 24/7, even when they are at school or daycare. It is just
different in important ways from most other pursuits.

Plus, we don't really have an established culture for dealing with all this as
a parent. So much of our very widespread tech is too new for us to have some
established precedent to confidently draw upon.

------
hiisukun
When I was growing up, I used to read quite a lot. I wasn't allowed to bring
my book to the dinner table - no matter how suspenseful the chapter or how
fascinating the subject. Of course my childhood wasn't perfect; every night
wasn't a talkative social family dinner. I appreciated the rule even back
then, though I wanted to read my book it was easy to see that me doing so was
taking something away from the other people at the table. A little intangible,
but quite clear.

I can't help but wonder if in the many countries & cultures, and across many
generations, what various expectations there are for family time together, and
what challenges and barriers were in the way. "No lens polishing at the dinner
table!" might have been said to some young astronomer hundreds of years ago.

Mobile phones are a great source of information (something I've been
fascinated with my whole life), but sometimes seem to replace rather than
supplement social interactions. While I can see why people would want a "tech
free dinner", I've also had the joy of a "facetime dinner" with friend's
grandchildren who live far away. It was a wonderful and natural thing for the
child involved, because it added to the social harmony, rather than isolating
parts of it.

------
bronz
whenever i see parents struggling with issues like this, i wonder why everyone
wanders into parenthood without any forethought, any preparation. its so
frustrating to see people take their hands off the wheel and say "well, i have
no control over this situation. i hope my kid turns out ok." people have this
idea that you cant influence your kids. they send them to school where you
have 0% control over what they see and do.

parents do prepare when it comes to finances and having a crib, but its the
larger picture that is not considered in advance. nobody seems to look at how
kids are raised now and think "this is completely broken" and then make a plan
to deal with it. children are like any other animal, they need to be raised
deliberately. if you spoil a dog, and dont train it, what kind of dog do you
wind up with? what kind of people do you end up with when they are sucked into
ipads while still in a stroller, and they are sent to schools that are little
more than zoos being overseen by air-headed sorority girls? well, what a
coincidence, you end up with the poorly adjusted and frustrated kind of person
that seems to be more and more common these days. just because society says
that everyone has to use social media doesnt mean you have to let your kid use
social media. fuck society.

~~~
joshribakoff
> children are like any other animal

Yeah, raising kids is just like owning a gerbil. Exactly.

~~~
imchillyb
@joshribakoff, you're being disingenuous. You left out the important part of
that quote:

> they need to be raised deliberately. if you spoil a dog, and dont train it,
> what kind of dog do you wind up with? what kind of people do you end up with
> when they are sucked into ipads while still in a stroller, and they are sent
> to schools that are little more than zoos being overseen by air-headed
> sorority girls?

That is succinct, true, and a shame. A shame, just like your hand-picking out
a part of a sentence, in order to make the poster sound like an idiot is.

He omitted: in that, from his sentence. They are just like animals, in
that....

And if you were to be truthful with yourself, you'd admit he's eerily correct
in his observation.

~~~
joshribakoff
Disciplining a kid like they are a dog just feels like a marginal step up from
corporal punishment. Instead I believe in a more empathetic approach. I can
teach a kid why its dangerous to walk into the street, no so with a dog, which
can only learn via positive & negative associations, without understanding or
communicating the reason why. A gold fish can be trained to swim through a
hoop by giving a treat. A kid has more complex emotions & thought process.
Also discipline is not the only principle you want to teach a kid. What about
creativity? Self expression? If a 9 year old wants to write his own mine craft
mod, I don't care if he is on his ipad at dinner time. Cultural change is
inevitable why fight it. My parents gave me electronics kits, knex, lego
mindstorms, I was programming at 12yrs old. I grew up a productive member of
society. If your kids on their ipad too much maybe delete angry birds &
install a math/learning game instead.

~~~
jdietrich
>I can teach a kid why its dangerous to walk into the street

Children are neurologically incapable of understanding a large proportion of
the dangers they face. Toddlers simply can't understand the cause and effect
of "run into street -> get run over". Younger children who lack a fully
developed theory of mind can't understand the concept of lying. Younger
teenagers often attempt suicide as a means of seeking attention, without fully
understanding the finality of death. Older teenagers have a very limited
ability to reason about more abstract risk behaviours like distracted driving
or binge drinking.

Unless your child is extraordinarily precocious, some amount of "don't do that
or there'll be trouble" will inevitably be necessary. Hell, adults often
respond far better to simple conditioning than logical reasoning. Patiently
explaining the risks of smoking was far less effective than simply
stigmatising the behaviour. Everyone knows that they need to eat less and
exercise more, but that knowledge has done practically nothing to stem the
obesity epidemic. We can't expect children to understand that homework is a
necessary investment in their future when most adults don't save enough for
retirement.

Children need to be taught self-regulation, but it's unrealistic and unfair to
burden them with the full responsibility of disciplining themselves. Rules and
boundaries are a kindness, not a cruelty - they give children a safe space in
which to learn and develop.

~~~
joshribakoff
well I didn't ever like homework either. I failed classes because I was up all
night programming. I hated homework because I was hungrier to work on
something more interesting. Not because I didn't want to learn. I believe in
letting people follow their calling. For some that means not wearing a
seatbelt or becoming obese and that does not harm me. Toddlers is a different
story. If a toddler throws a temper tantrum I believe in comforting. With an
animal you'd lock it in a crate. I had behavior problems and the experts told
my parents to give me more access to technology instead of take it away. It
worked

~~~
bronz
there are things beneath the surface that must be set. the mind takes shape at
certain levels during certain ages. if they take an unfortunate shape, the
child will carry that burden with them forever. if you abuse a child, you can
make this happen. it is universally accepted that childhood abuse can cause
life long behavioral problems. what is not universally observed, however, is
that child abuse has a kind of opposite. you can mold a young mind into being
poorly adjusted and you can mold a young mind into being extraordinarily well
adjusted.

not everything in life is conscious. in many situations that are new or
ambiguous, a child will make a decision based on his or her disposition, his
or her feeling. a well adjusted child has feelings about things that will help
them. of course, those feelings and instincts dont guide all decisions, im not
saying that.

and here is where our opinions intersect: the reason to control and form a
child in their early development is because it provides a good foundation for
the next step, which is self motivated learning. no child can learn anything
unless they learn it themselves or if it is taught to them in an extreme way.
by extreme, i mean that you take your kid aside and look him in the eye and
you put on a face more serious and deadly than you have ever before and you
say to him in a low voice "crossing the street without looking is not
acceptable." those lessons should be few. what you want is to spark a chain
reaction of learning by first teaching the child how to learn and then
allowing them to build their knowledge on their own.

learning to learn comes naturally to some and not to others. being forced to
learn complicated things forces one to learn how to learn. usually people get
this in their twenties when they set a hard goal, like passing a chemistry or
physics class in college. i believe that this can be done deliberately by the
parent at a much earlier age.

so, my overall point is that a child must be raised deliberately.

------
KirinDave
I think maybe mobile tech is starting to go through it's 90's-era-
children's-tv-style "Oh my god nearly everything we've made is a manipulative
commercial designed to get an economic outcome without regard for the
consequences to the kids" moment.

And that's good. Because while kids are much more susceptible to the
attention-seeking games mobile app designers play, they are by no means
ineffective on adults.

------
NTDF9
My cousin has a no tv policy in his home. The parents do watch tv but not in
the presence of their 3 year old boy. They'd rather take the kid to play with
other kids or swimming.

This won't last, sure. But by the time the kid grows up to start making
demands, he'll hopefully already be more invested in his current activities
and find solace in swimming.

I really don't want kids around me growing up to become unsocialized video
game geniuses.

~~~
justadeveloper2
We got rid of cable tv years ago and tv watching dropped off sharply after
that. These days we barely turn it on, although the kids play XBox here and
there. The iPads they have are a nuisance, though. We excised the worst demon,
but Youtube has some pretty vapid crap, too. It's a process. I don't want to
entirely cut them off because they do learn from it here and there. It's a
tool, not a drug.

~~~
artur_makly
but they are clearly designed to be a drug.. under the guise of a tool:

[https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-
Produc...](https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-
Products/dp/1591847788)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-
youtube-reveals-about-the-toddler-mind/534765/?single_page=true)

------
nvarsj
I'm always struck by the arrogance of parents. It never changes through the
ages. Why do you think you know what's best for your kids? Do you really have
the insight and experience from a single lifetime's perspective to know what's
best for kids?

Especially striking are the programmers who grew up on technology. Literally
spent all day on a computer as a kid, and now have high paying jobs, and happy
lives. And then they say "no tech in the house!" \- like it is some bad thing.
It's almost like a cult, there is a striking lack of rationality. It's like
that protestant ethic - if it feels good, it must be bad.

I have two kids, and I do limit screen time to an extent. But I don't go and
brag like I know this is the best thing for them. I have very mixed feelings
about it. Certainly when my kids are teenagers, I think an attempt to control
them is just going to end up bad for everyone involved.

~~~
robertlagrant
No one is bragging. They are just talking. And the point isn't that no kid can
cope with massive exposure to technology, it's that now, all kids have access
to it. A kid from the 90s who grew up on it was probably pretty smart to be
able to access that stuff, and could potentially cope better with it than
another kid (although you can have very poor social development and still get
paid a lot, so the job thing doesn't really prove anything) - now, all kids
have access, if their parents let them.

I'm not saying it's bad, necessarily. I'm just concerned by the lack of logic
in a lot of these pro-technology responses.

------
squozzer
I dunno -- part of the problem might be that we older people have notions of
how childhood should be. Entire industries are built around it. And we eagerly
declare an emergency when kids decide to stray from the notional path.

But maybe a little experience will enlighten (maybe.) I recall some 30-odd
years ago how much more fun D&D would be if all of the paper, die-rolling,
etc. were automated. This was sometime between the Atari 2600 and Commodore
64. I got my wish, obviously, and then some.

And it seemed old-fashioned ways of gaming would forever be consigned to
history's dustbin.

Only it didn't happen that way. Dice and tabletops are still around, maybe
more popular than in my day.

So I for one will not surrender to despair, or go blue-nose against modern
tech "for the children." Maybe we should just go with the flow.

------
noonespecial
I think the opposite. Every one of the effects (and more) that she decided
happened too early before her kids were "emotionally ready", the high school
experience smashed down on me like a meteor strike.

A link to my tribe in my pocket making me feel even a bit less than a complete
outsider would have been a godsend.

Bbs's saved my ass while my parents fretted that "all that time on the
computer doing god knows what" would ruin me for life so what do I know?

------
pnathan
Politely, this is not a new problem. Nor is it untypical for the upper crust
to have issues with their kids, if myths and tales from earlier times are to
be believed.

I can confidently say that screen addiction is kind of a _thing_ for many
kids. They can't bear to be without it. I notice my baby _stares_ at the
glowing screens, the phones, the computers. He also stares at fires.
Brightness is attractive, apparently.

But something my wife and I are very set about: Mr. Baby will have to be able
to bear being without a phone. Not that we'll be hovering or super limiting,
but we expect Mr. Baby to be able to psychologically handle not having a phone
glued to himself at all waking hours, and we will adjust our own phone usage
if it becomes apparent _we_ have issues.

Most entertainment and many non-entertainment phone apps are designed to be
attention-grabbing machines, and that's worrisome. Kids don't have that armor
to be able to drop out into a focus world. It is a very _hot_ media, by
McLuhan's classification, and I think that's worrisome.

Anyway. Unexpected effects happen, we're spinning faster than we ever have,
and we have to ride the wave.

~~~
l33tbro
The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each
breakthrough for granted.

Sure, we're spinning faster and faster, as you say. But sometimes I think it's
actually the FOMO mechanism built into social media that is keeping us
unimpressed by the amazing technology powering it. Kind of a cruel joke
really.

~~~
pnathan
> The lack of awe is what surprises me. Just how quickly we take each
> breakthrough for granted.

That's just your perspective and the people you deal with. Many people I know
over 40 are amazed. Perspective....

A lot of the technology is respun other technology, and that does take the
luster off.

Personally I think a lot of the social media stuff is bunk, particularly the
bits that prioritize zero-content fluff. But things like Mastodon, Hacker
News, or Wordpress (remember twitter was _microblogging_ ) have spawned deep
and thoughtful engagement with the world and others.

------
artur_makly
Amen. Im glad im not the only one freaking out about this.

a few weeks ago i posted to HN asking for parental advice:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14924520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14924520)

i mostly got "aahh dont worry about it. you are being hysterical" ... i see it
all around me (even in 2nd world countries like Argentina - where im an expat
).

Its quickly deteriorating the fabric of our society. When I see families go
out together for dinner ( 90% of them are ALL on their phones ) .. Single
fathers with their sons.. both on phones.. At a singles-night at a bar.. all
on phones instagramming hard.

Their little brains are being hardwired to the digital COCA-COLA..and when the
water comes around they look at you like "why drink that shit?!"

When he grows up.. no laptop at school for him:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-
secret...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-
take-notes-with-a-laptop/)

in fact our family is seriously thinking of moving to Patagonia, just to re-
calibrate with natural wavelengths.

~~~
hycaria
When and how do one come to think that it is a good thing to let kids watch YT
videos ? I used to wonder this but I think now I know why.

I barely watch any myself so I really don't get the hype people seem to have
for videos. But my boyfriend watches more YT than I do, and follows channels I
don't get the point of. That's actually the moment I realized my disinterest
for browsing channels and watching videos was maybe not so common after all.

Also, what's the problem with banning it altogether ? I don't see one, other
than the disapointment that compromise didn't work. But of course a 5yo can't
have the self control some people never even reach during their lifetimes
anyways.

------
graphitezepp
I think it's (it being the socially damaging effects of persistent internet
access) is going to get way worse before it gets better. Rising depression
rates in youth are happening, but nobody is even talking about this on the
'mainstream', it's just not openly visible yet. Meanwhile the Google's and
Facebook's algorithms keep getting more finely tuned . . .

~~~
triangleman
No worries man, Google is going to diagnose your depression and all but
prescribe your Prozac.

------
artursapek
For people like me who think smart phones ruin everything, I suggest looking
into Waldorf education for your kids. Smart phones are banned at the school
(until high school) and screen-oriented media (phones, TV, movies) are
strongly discouraged outside of school. In my opinion the system attracts
really interesting adults and kids who still know how to enjoy life the old
fashioned way.

~~~
mulmen
I wonder about the efficacy of banning the devices entirely until a certain
point. Is that all that is done or is an attempt made to teach children how to
responsibly use the devices so they don't gorge themselves when the ban is
lifted?

~~~
artursapek
There is an attempt and they are conscious of the fact that outright bans
never work. It's more about preventing media from influencing the childrens'
development, especially early on.

~~~
mulmen
That's great then. As adults were are left to our own devices to figure out
how to use new technology. Giving children those mechanisms will serve them
well long-term.

------
drdeadringer
> I probably would have waited longer before putting a computer in my
> children’s pockets

A part of me wonders how this consideration might stunt the child for "the
near future to come" in a societal context.

Sure, we could want our children to have similar experiences to our own.
However, technology and at least in part related society advances increase at
ever faster speeds. My grandfather could get a job by walking down the street
and saying "hello" to a shopkeeper. Me? Not going to happen; "apply online"
and maybe I'll get an automated, maybe even kind, rejection email about
"skills" or "fit". My children? Some AI could automatically filter them in or
out of internships and the like. What could a totally blank ghost town of
lifetime data prior to 5, 10, or 15 years old do to someone in a completely,
totally, all-encompassing digital age? Nevermind what this would mean for
somebody running for political office.

------
foodshin
While I do appreciate how much is at my fingertips with my phone I also
acknowledge how it can insidiously develop unnecessary habits–random home
button tapping anyone? Reminds me of this article:
[https://theroamingmind.com/2017/03/06/social-media-is-the-
ne...](https://theroamingmind.com/2017/03/06/social-media-is-the-new-smoking/)

I also don't want to be quick in demonizing specific apps or companies. I have
power over my notification settings which have a huge effect on usage
patterns. I've been using Moment
([https://inthemoment.io/](https://inthemoment.io/)) to help get quick
snapshots at my utilization rates.

*Edit: grammar

------
spacemanmatt
I grew up glued to screens since I was 11. My parents hated it, but my hobby
became my career and I became a confident and social individual despite my
constant interest in computers.

Now, I serve dinner in front of a movie/TV sometimes, and don't police my
kids' phone usage at the table. I do police other behavior, and checking out
in the presence of others isn't acceptable. They try to become little addicts
(they're young) but the pressure to engage locally wins often enough. If
there's nothing to talk about, I don't mind if they get online. It generally
takes all day to exhaust our conversations like that, though.

------
flatline
> I spent my career at Microsoft trying to imagine what technology could do,
> and still I wasn’t prepared for smartphones and social media

There is a certain irony in her opening statement regarding Microsoft's lack
of vision in these two spaces. I think there a have been some unforeseen
consequences of these but even when I was a teen, kids would spend hours each
day on the phone, or on the computer playing games - some even online - or
watching TV. I feel like the fundamental interpersonal dynamic really hasn't
changed that much, and I say this as a parent of young kids and a friend of
lots of parents with teenagers.

------
gthtjtkt
One of the things I'm most thankful for is the fact that I grew up before cell
phones were ubiquitous. And I honestly feel awful for children today, because
they're all the unwitting subjects of a cruel experiment: What happens when
you give people access to _everything_ from birth?

Knowing how much self-control it takes for me to resist social media, Reddit,
games, etc. I can't even imagine what it's like for children. Many of them are
probably being ruined by smartphones, but we won't realize until it's too
late, like the kids in China who are all myopic because they spent too much
time indoors.

------
taurath
Its slightly ironic to me because I went much more to technology than my peers
growing up because I had depression and social problems, not the other way
around.

I think technology being so mainstream now means that the popular kids can now
have a lot more online points (followers, likes, etc) just like in real life.
Stuff happening on a screen is very frequently a lot more interesting than
whats going on in a suburb - besides, you can't get social likes/currency if
you're not online.

------
alexashka
I've found that the more competent and as a result confident the parents, the
less they micro-manage their kids.

They don't feel the need to send them to private schools, have them be A
students, get into universities, spend less time on their phone etc etc etc.

That's just insecure, overbearing parents.

There's some subtle irony in the same person who is part of a foundation
saving kids in Africa, worrying about phone use. You'd think she'd have a
greater perspective on these things.

------
peterburkimsher
"eighth-graders who use social media more than 10 hours a week are 56 percent
more likely to say they’re unhappy than peers who use it less"

But is that a causal relationship? Are people unhappy first, so they therefore
go on Facebook to seek help? Does taking away that escape route make it worse?

Correlation does not imply causation.

------
bllguo
The thing is that technology can have an _incredibly positive_ benefit on a
kid's life if done right. People espousing schools banning screens and limited
screen time strike me as people attached to the status quo. We need to adapt
and learn how to raise children around technology.

------
artur_makly
[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/what-
youtube-reveals-about-the-toddler-mind/534765/)

------
artur_makly
i think this Android app will do the trick for kids under 15:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zerodeskto...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zerodesktop.appdetox.qualitytime&hl=en)

and this one for IOS: TeenSafe [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/teensafe-
parental-control/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/teensafe-parental-
control/id1066075344?mt=8)

------
simplexion
How does a child having a computer exclude them from learning empathy? Do
teenagers that are more likely to be depressed use social media more?

There are so many problems with this article.

------
j_s
I don't think it was tech specifically as much as the _love of_ tech.

I appreciate the reminder to be mindful for my own family's sake!

------
jknz
1B startup idea: equip every primary/secondary/high schools with walls that
block every cellular signals.

------
dharma1
two kids, 2 and 7. They have a hard time having dinner without watching
something on iPad. Otherwise the 2 year old doesn't use technology aside from
TV, 7 year old has 1 hour of iPad time most days.

I like to give them some exposure to tech but much of it so addictive, makes
me think how it must affect reward pathways in a maturing brain

------
fullshark
I agree with the sentiment of this, but this is pretty light.

------
justadeveloper2
Technology does not care about human values.

~~~
mulmen
How can this be true? Technology is created exclusively by people. Our values
are baked in.

Filesystems have a concept of ownership, ask your dog what that means.

~~~
dionidium
I think it's more accurate to say that technology _reveals_ the edges and
contours of our values.

~~~
mulmen
That's a good way of stating it actually, something to think about.

------
jansho
_" The most important thing we've learned,

So far as children are concerned,

Is never, NEVER, NEVER let

Them near your television set --

Or better still, just don't install

The idiotic thing at all.

In almost every house we've been,

We've watched them gaping at the screen.

They loll and slop and lounge about,

And stare until their eyes pop out.

(Last week in someone's place we saw

A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)

They sit and stare and stare and sit

Until they're hypnotised by it,

Until they're absolutely drunk

With all that shocking ghastly junk.

Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,

They don't climb out the window sill,

They never fight or kick or punch,

They leave you free to cook the lunch

And wash the dishes in the sink --

But did you ever stop to think,

To wonder just exactly what

This does to your beloved tot?

IT ROTS THE SENSE IN THE HEAD!

IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD!

IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND!

IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND

HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND

A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND!

HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE!

HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE!

HE CANNOT THINK -- HE ONLY SEES!

'All right!' you'll cry. 'All right!' you'll say,

'But if we take the set away,

What shall we do to entertain

Our darling children? Please explain!'

We'll answer this by asking you,

'What used the darling ones to do?

'How used they keep themselves contented

Before this monster was invented?'

Have you forgotten? Don't you know?

We'll say it very loud and slow:

THEY ... USED ... TO ... READ! They'd READ and READ,

AND READ and READ, and then proceed

To READ some more. Great Scott! Gadzooks!

One half their lives was reading books!

The nursery shelves held books galore!

Books cluttered up the nursery floor!

And in the bedroom, by the bed,

More books were waiting to be read!

Such wondrous, fine, fantastic tales

Of dragons, gypsies, queens, and whales

And treasure isles, and distant shores

Where smugglers rowed with muffled oars,

And pirates wearing purple pants,

And sailing ships and elephants,

And cannibals crouching 'round the pot,

Stirring away at something hot.

(It smells so good, what can it be?

Good gracious, it's Penelope.)

The younger ones had Beatrix Potter

With Mr. Tod, the dirty rotter,

And Squirrel Nutkin, Pigling Bland,

And Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and-

Just How The Camel Got His Hump,

And How the Monkey Lost His Rump,

And Mr. Toad, and bless my soul,

There's Mr. Rat and Mr. Mole-

Oh, books, what books they used to know,

Those children living long ago!

So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,

Go throw your TV set away,

And in its place you can install

A lovely bookshelf on the wall.

Then fill the shelves with lots of books,

Ignoring all the dirty looks,

The screams and yells, the bites and kicks,

And children hitting you with sticks-

Fear not, because we promise you

That, in about a week or two

Of having nothing else to do,

They'll now begin to feel the need

Of having something to read.

And once they start -- oh boy, oh boy!

You watch the slowly growing joy

That fills their hearts. They'll grow so keen

They'll wonder what they'd ever seen

In that ridiculous machine,

That nauseating, foul, unclean,

Repulsive television screen!

And later, each and every kid

Will love you more for what you did."_

\--

Roald Dahl died in 1990, I wonder what he would think about smartphones :)

------
untilHellbanned
virtue signaling

------
hondo77
Billionaire tells us how we should be living our lives. How fortunate we are.

~~~
contingencies
Wife of billionaire with a track record of 100% failed ventures in mobile
tells us all about mobile.

