> I realize with horror that she’s spent nine hours on the phone that day. She was only awake at 11.
> My daughter doesn’t make collages or jewelry or sew anymore. A child who used to read in the bath won’t pick up a book unless threatened with the loss of her phone.
> Getting her to make a card for a family member — something she once did for fun — is like getting her to clean her room
> Yet still, each day is a battle over only one thing.
> And little by little, our daughter has chipped away at our rules and resolve.
Honestly, so much of this sounded familiar to me ... but from my own teenage years. My parents were appalled at the amount of time I was spending at a MS-DOS PC (not only playing games but also learning programming).
So I'd say that no, it's not that phones are like crack. There seems to be a disconnect on the parent's expectations when children discover the possibilities of a technology that's unfamiliar to them. In the article they're talking about the ease of controlling TV time but that doesn't even compare in possibilities of communication, entertainment and education.
Heck... I'm sure if you could go back in time you'd discover the first generation to grow up with books, and their desperate parents noticing how the kids aren't ... working the fields and feeding the cattle, I guess.
This resonates with me because when I was a kid I really enjoyed video games and I would program them into my cheap, rudimentary computer. I even sold some games I made on cassette tapes. My parents were really distressed that I was wasting my time. But-- surprise-- I had/ have a long and successful career making video games.
Now I am a parent and I tend to let my kids play a lot of game on their computer. But it is different. In the old days computers weren't really that entertaining except if you programmed them. Now they have a lot of passive entertainment value. It's a lot more like watching television or talking on the phone then the engaging hobby I had as a child. I tell them it is important to create media as well as consume media.
My kids (boys) are not on tiktok. I think social media is a waste of time and I actually would worry if either of them used it. They do go on Discord a lot, and that also has some problems.
I agree the vast majority of computer users do not get those benefits, since their main computer is their phone. Phones do not lend themselves to learning about computers, they provide sterile environments that try to get you to forget its a computer in the first place and scroll facebook instead.
Seems like your kid just isn’t interested in the same things you are. If the flashy entertainment were stripped away, they probably would’ve never cared about it.
The poster said their kid wasn't interested in fiddling with workings of computers before social media was a thing, so I don't think that's the problem in their specific case.
There's always been low hanging fruit. There were video games from the dawn of computing. I played games and did programming, sometimes more gaming, sometimes more coding. My mother worried generically about 'computer time'.
Many of my friends had games consoles, or computers but they only used BASIC to load games from cassettes. They turned out fine. None of them ever expressed the slightest interest in creating anything but they went on to do other useful things, like teaching or social care.
We are way, way too quick to assign complicated sciencey sounding explanations to stuff earlier generations would have described as common sense. Games are fun. Reading is fun. Talking is fun. Parents used to despair at the hours their daughters would spend on the expensive telephone instead of doing more child-y or creative things, and so what? They all worked out fine. The world is not short on creative people.
I spent from age 7 to 12, treating computers as entertainment device and then started programming.
My dad never really pushed for me to do it, it was out of necessity. My mom actively fought it.
Somehow it stuck with me and I realised the potential to automate my entire life and, later, that I could use it to make money, even if I was underage.
For my own kids, I'm planning to put them in a situation where they will need to learn how to create and be independent, without pushing them in that direction, or helping them out.
Yup. There was a moral panic about fiction specifically in the early-to-mid 1800s. Kids (and women, too) were sitting around staring at these made-up stories instead of going out and doing real things.
"We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatsoever to the body" - Scientific American, circa 1859
> not only playing games but also learning programming
I think the basic question is: Are you consumer or producer? When you program or using excel or writing a blog posts, you grow as a person. Apps can be both, so It's more about the ratio. You can try to make nice & creative photos for your Instagram profile or just browse and see what others are up to.
The problem is that kids will tell you that they will produce and learn, but then spend most of the time consuming, which will slowly kills their creativity.
I spent thousands of hours in front of my Vic20, C64, etc. Back then the platforms really encouraged creativity. Now I feel every single platform just encourages consumerism.
There is a substantive difference between a computer and a phone; only one is carried with you every single second of the day. Until you account for the drastic difference in how they can be used, it's pretty hard to equate your experience with a computer to a kid's experience today with a smart phone.
> My parents were appalled at the amount of time I was spending at a MS-DOS PC (not only playing games but also learning programming).
Whatever, social networks are a different thing. I wouldn't mind my kids spend as much time using their gadgets as they want except for social networks. Consuming information, hacking and even some chatting are okay, Instagram addiction is not.
Did no one besides you read the article? FTA: "My husband and I said she could have a phone when she turned 14..."
People are arguing about everything from extended school hours, excessive homework to climate change in this thread.
Could it be that the daughter was raised in a highly sheltered environment and once she hit puberty, she had other interests besides collages, jewelry and sewing?
I wrote this in another comment...
"It's a tale as old as time. Every child is a genius, angel, perfect until they hit puberty. Then we find "rock 'n roll", "rap music", "radio", "MTV", "television" or other culprits for corrupting our youth. Today it is social media. Tomorrow it will be VR. God knows what comes after that."
The entire article is about an overprotective and controlling mother complaining that her daughter is now a teenager. Instead of blaming rap music, she's blaming the iPhone.
That might be true, if electronic gadgets were the same as previous obsessions. But they're different. They change from second to second, providing a level of stimulation unprecedented in human experience.
It's possible we're not going to adapt well to this e-world. There's no reason to think an evolved ape has the wiring to make the transition without trauma.
Imagine if the iPhone were heroin. Would we be so casual in dismissing it?
"Imagine if X were Y" isn't really an argument to support "We should act as if X were Y, or at least similar". What needs to be presented is a reason to believe that X is, in fact, like Y.
How is it so obviously not heroin? I, a fully-formed and functioning adult, feel the pull in my brain. I was addicted to cigarettes in my 20s and I've had unhealthy relationships with numerous other drugs and video games that I've (mostly) managed to pull myself away from, after years. The feeling of "checking your notifications" and "scrolling through twitter" on your phone are remarkably similar to the compulsion for drugs. This is my personal subjective experience and I believe objective research confirms it as well.
If you want to make an argument that it should be treated like heroin because it is in some relevant sense more like heroin or other things that it is broadly accepted should be treated like heroin than it is like other things that it is broadly accepted should not be treated like heroin then...some evidence besides simply stating your belief for the relevant similarity would be a good thing to present.
The point you're making may be that it is akin to "drugs" but not all drugs are like heroin and what you are describing is nothing like heroin cravings and withdrawal.
Why not go with something that invokes less emotions in the reader like "caffeine" or "nicotine"?
Because the itch to check on a notification or scroll through the news feed is surely closer to the itch for a cigarette or your vaporizer than... heroin. That's a big jump there just to describe "compulsive desire".
From my personal experiences and according to the subjective experiences of my friends I've had chatted on this topic with... certainly a closer feeling to the reward seeking behavior (itch) that can be conditioned with simultaneous application of nicotine + a monoamine oxidase inhibitor.
Sufficient evidence was presented for the metaphor, it seems apt and you seem to be overly obtuse. You seem unwilling to look beyond the obvious "its quite obviously literally not heroin". My god you sound insufferable.
It is really not sufficient evidence for the metaphor, though.
The point may be that it is akin to "drugs" but not all drugs are like heroin and what he is describing is nothing like heroin cravings and withdrawal.
Why not go with something that invokes less emotions in the reader like "caffeine" or "nicotine"?
Because the itch to check on a notification or scroll through the news feed is surely closer to the itch for a cigarette or your vaporizer than... heroin. That's a big jump there just to describe "compulsive desire".
When I was a kid the compulsion to put plastic zoo animals in little enclosures, and build all 151 pokemon out of lego was remarkably similar to the compulsion for drugs. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about this.
Each particular video game gets old and boring really quick. You need a constant supply of new games to stay "addicted" your entire life, which is exactly the opposite of how an addiction for a physical substance works. You never stop taking drugs unless you somehow can taper off the dosage. This is one of the reasons why switching from smoking to vaping and quitting vaping is easier than quitting smoking. You have control over your dosage and a lot of unclean crap is taken out.
Edit:
Not getting access to clean drugs is one of the biggest reasons why addicts suffer from health problems and have trouble reducing their dosage. Small portions of harder drugs and random substances that are optically identical are mixed into drugs and strengthen the addiction beyond what the primary ingredient can do.
Almost everything in history is "unprecedented in human experience". That's pretty much the defining feature of being a human, that our world is constantly changing (because we're changing it). A smartphone is just another distraction in a long line of man-made distractions that we've invented, worried about, and then adapted to. Oh man the headlines that exist from the past worrying about people reading newspapers on trains and how it will be the end of civilization. Heck if you go back to the 1800s, we were worried that novels would make people unable to tell facts from fiction [1].
>It's possible we're not going to adapt well to this e-world
There are very few things humans have ever created that humans are unable to adapt to (and pretty much all of those things are weapons). That's the other side of the unique thing that makes us human: things are constantly changing, and we are constantly adapting to the changes.
For as long as humans have lived, we've tried to distract ourselves from the banality of life. Some part of the population goes down a rabbit hole and stays lost and unproductive: that's not new. The majority of people are mildly productive and then turn to distractions when work is over. And another small group shuns distractions in order to stay as productive as possible for as long as possible. This bell curve has existed through all of human history.
The people who get addicted to apps and social media and phones are the same people who were addicted to novels in the 1800s and comics in the 1930s and TV in the 1950s and video games in the 1990s. Even infinite scrolling isn't new... libraries have existed for a long time, TV just keeps playing forever and ever, and there are more video games than you can play in a lifetime.
When cars and trains were new, people were questioning if evolved apes could survive speeds faster than 30mph. We are not just evolved apes; our specific evolutionary advantage is the ability to adapt, overcome, and get bored even when presented with unlimited stimulation.
But lets be honest - they weren't anywhere near the level of an instantly-available portable object you can keep in your pocket and pings you for attention all day and all night.
There's may be a threshold beyond what we can manage. A Polly-Anna attitude of "we've survived so far!" is not comforting nor convincing.
And the approach of "lets give ever-more-addictive devices to our children unrestricted until some provable damage occurs" is perhaps a negligent policy.
I think the step from books->TV was much more dramatic that TV->SocialMedia. the delta of stimulation is much greater in the former, imho.
In any case, 1hr of iPhone/day is way too strict for a teenager nowadays. I was lucky to be the 3rd child, and my parents didn’t really paid attention to how I was spending my time. I overdosed on a bunch of things as a kid: TV, videogames, my computer, the internet when I got it (I’m in my late 30s), but then I got over them, except computers, which became my profession.
On the other hand, people my age that were only allowed one hour of Nintendo per day as kids, are still craving the next PlayStation like grown up junkies. Last time I played a videogame I was maybe.. 22.
>On the other hand, people my age that were only allowed one hour of Nintendo per day as kids, are still craving the next PlayStation like grown up junkies. Last time I played a videogame I was maybe.. 22.
This is awfully close to gatekeeping. All hobbies are fine in moderation. One is not inherently 'better' than any other.
Yes, I’ll give you that.
I think the point I was trying to make was that being denied some activities ( or have them severely restricted) as a young kid, may have repercussions later in life that ends up being the opposite of what the parents wished for.
Kind of like how TV pictures change from second to second, or city life changes from second to second, or...well, heroin doesn't change from second to second, but it provides a dopamine hit that's even more powerful than things that do. We pretty casually dismiss the Opium Wars now.
Its portable. You can choose your drug with a phone - games, texting, facebook. And it pings and pings and won't let you get any respite. Its different in intensity from all those things that came before.
I just think it deserves some analysis - what's the maximum distracting addictive information rush we can support without becoming disfunctional or chronically obsessed? Isn't it worth finding out, before we give children unrestricted access?
Ah yes. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. I remember when the tv ( aka idiot box ) was attacked for being addictive.
> Would we be so casual in dismissing it?
Who is casually dismissing it? There is an entire propaganda campaign against social media. From congress to news to netflix and on, ironically enough, social media itself. Every day we hear about how bad social media is.
But what I was responding to was the article itself. The complaints in the article would exist with or without iphones, apps, social media. Staying up all night talking to friends, waking up at 11 AM, losing interest in childhood stuff, pushing back against the parents, etc are all teenage behavior, not iphone behavior.
I'm not a fan of smartphones as they are and I despise social media. But that's not what the article was really about. I was just trying to stay on topic.
It was what the article was about. This 'drug' is portable, instantly accessible and actually pings you constantly for attention. It's like nothing that came before. And whitewashing it as 'more of the same' is disingenuous.
iPhones are just a medium for information. In my opinion it shouldn't matter how you access information, the type of information being accessed is what's most important. "Spending too much time" on a phone shouldn't be the top priority, what they're doing with their phones is what should be looked after.
30 years ago, kids had hobbies, there's wasn't much to compete. Legos, collecting stamps/baseball cards, catching bugs, building models, photography, racing home build cars, sports, even things like just reading the encyclopedia, etc. Even libraries weren't that well stocked, I think I read every sci-fi book at my local library.
Now there's literally billions being spent on "free" games, "free video", "free" social sites, etc and trying every video, audio, vibration, trick in the book to make them more addicting. It's a trap, it encourages vanity, consumerism, poor body image, etc. I think the best thing you can do for kids these days is make sure they have a healthy amount of time offline.
Yes, it's like they are despair to find a simple explanation for their child disinterest in things they want her to be interested in when it's just their child growing up.
Maybe. My teenage years were spent reading and being creative. I spent more time creating artwork during those years than in all the subsequent decades put together. But if I had had a smartphone back then? I doubt I would have read a single book or created any artwork. Would that made me a better or worse person than I am now? Well, that's impossible to say. I don't regret how I spent my teenage years. Will those who are growing up fully engrossed in their phones every feel regret? We probably won't know for about 30 more years when they have enough life experience to look back and reflect. It will be interesting to see what people have to say around 2050. Then again, what do they have to compare it with? They can't compare a life lived constantly on a phone with a life not lived constantly on one. So... maybe it is impossible for any person to say which way is better. Maybe it is just the aggregate of all of society over many decades that we can determine whether this experiment has a positive or negative (or neutral) outcome.
I don't think that's true. Most people I know on these apps are creating content just as much as they're consuming it. And the daughter in the linked article is clearly described as doing so.
> My daughter doesn’t make collages or jewelry or sew anymore. A child who used to read in the bath won’t pick up a book unless threatened with the loss of her phone.
> Getting her to make a card for a family member — something she once did for fun — is like getting her to clean her room
> Yet still, each day is a battle over only one thing.
> And little by little, our daughter has chipped away at our rules and resolve.
Congratulations, your child is now in puberty.