[nemo1618]

I was raised by parents who strictly limited my computer time to one hour a day. I spent most of it playing games, so perhaps their concern was justified. But I loved the computer, so, so much. And of course, I would do anything to sneak around the limits: wait until my parents went to sleep, binge while they were away, etc.

It created a rather ugly tension between us; very adversarial. Upon later reflection, I realized that the root of it was that my parents had never made an effort to understand what compelled me to "veg out" in front of that screen as much as possible. They never asked me what a particular game was about, why I liked it, whether I was any good at it... in fact, I turned out to be exceptional at a number of games, winning amateur competitions and the like -- but I never shared those achievements with my parents, for fear that they would berate me for wasting my time developing useless skills.

My dad tried to teach me Java and Ruby, but gave up when they didn't seem to stick. He didn't notice all the time I spent "programming" games of my own in RPG Maker 2000. (I did wind up pursuing programming seriously in college.)

I guess my point is: before you limit something, make an honest effort to understand it first. Maybe play a round or two of that game with your child. Maybe ask them what sort of YouTube videos they like to watch (my younger cousins watch endless hours of other people playing games, which I still struggle to understand...). As I matured, I was able to forgive my parents; they did what they did out of love. I just wish it hadn't taken me so long to realize that.

[chipsy]

I was allowed many hours on the computer(albeit often having to take turns with my brother), but I concur that the emotional labor of listening and understanding is the number one thing my parents never "got." As I got older, their vicarious-living tendencies became more obvious - they wanted me doing things they personally liked and that was the farthest they could see.

That would be fine, but if it wasn't on their radar of likes, they saw no reason to bring it up or discuss it - and if I brought it up, they had a pattern of dismissal with no pledge of support or further discussion - sometimes using the Grave Serious tone, sometimes using the Explanatory, That's Nice, or Maybe Later tone. If I escalated or presented work to them, they would categorize it as a "career", "hobby" or "skill development" and position it relative to their preferred activities in a way which induced anxiety and discouraged me from continuing. The only thing I wanted was basic interest or acknowledgement, and they consistently messed that up by wheeling every conversation directly towards their comfort zone. To this day, if I try to talk about a personal issue, they rush to provide unsolicited solutions and explanations. I finally managed to unlearn the explaining pattern myself as I got into my later 20's, as my friends brought it to light.

So, at least at that time, I gave up on parental engagement and hid my life away in the computer instead, since at least there were people online, while weathering the (relatively mild, compared with others) storms of their own fancy. So too, I think, is the role of all of today's devices - when the family doesn't care, the screen fills in. It's a symptom.

I think it's right to set down rules at an early age. That is one thing I think my parents did do right, and the early years are probably more crucial overall. But they had no idea how to proceed from there - kids aren't going to be exactly like their parents, and that requires a lot of listening when they get into adolescence and try to speak for themselves.

[sandgaw]

The thing that people are missing is, tech is being used as a baby sitter. Just like TV was for me. Now it's worse because It's always connected. Parents are fucking lazy today. I see it constantly. It's about being connected to your kid that I'm for. That's fucking hard and people don't want to do hard today when they come home from work. They would rather sit and watch their own shit on their device because parenting is hard. Just look around the mall, airport or a dinner table. We're not talking about 12 year olds. These kids are 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, etc... Their brains are developing and technology, scientifically proven, gets in the way of brain development- just like TV and video games in my gen. It's not bad, in moderation, just like everything else in this world. So, it's not about the tech it's about the family. My 9 yr old kid reads 5-10 books a week. She looses herself in her books to the point she can't hear anyone. Learning, safely, for the most part. Using her imagination instead of it being fed to her by the vast majority of the shit out there. she gets to play learning and thinking games, not fruit ninja. What has changed from my gen is being connected 24/7 has giving adults an easy way out from doing something hard. I fucking want yell at a parent who is out to dinner with 2,3,4 year olds at the table playing with an iPad. While the parent is buried in their own. I limited the tech not because it's tech, trendy and cool to do so but, because we want our kids to be able to communicate with other human beings and the ability resolve conflict through something other than a text or Facebook. They will have plenty of opportunities to be immersed into technology and all troublesome things that come with it as a teen.

I know technology is empowering at the right age. But, I want both my kids to be exposed to cooking, knitting, skateboarding, swimming, playing sports, books, music and art by actually doing it versus it being fed to them on an iPad. If either one of them wants to learn a different programming language than me, I hope the fact that I've connected with my kid so we will be able to discover it together.

Bottom line, Generation Z is being raise by Apple, Samsung and Amazon. As a parent, I'm not OK with this.

[nemo1618]

For the most part I agree with your sentiment. You make a good point about the parents being as sucked into technology as their kids.

Regarding books though...is a book objectively "better" entertainment than a video game? Both require user participation, as opposed to the mindless consumption of television. There are low-quality games, but there are low-quality books as well. I'm inclined to agree that books are better, but I'm having a hard time justifying that belief.

[sandgaw]

@ nemo1618 I agree, books can be bad, too. We try to monitor what they read, but it's just as hard. They are going to sneak and hide the ones we don't want them to read - human nature. But, as a connected parent, I make it priority, even for just literally a few minutes, to sit down and ask about what she is reading. That way, she knows I'm participating. It makes a big difference. And, we do struggle with her reading constantly.. we get her out and go for a walk, bug hunts, etc.

The downside to a connected parent? I see one TV show a week with my wife, I'm tired, the laundry piles up and the living space is a lot dirtier.

Back to the point, I feel we are both making: It doesn't matter the medium, too much of one thing is bad. But, it's so much easier to put 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year olds in front of devices, because it's easy parenting. By the time they are 7, they won't want to read - it'll be too boring.

[EdSharkey]

I like your comment too, and I want to build exactly the tension between my kids and me that you had with your parents. First, there are studies about screen time, it's not anecdotal that too much screen time hurts a kid's creativity/imagination and can be linked to childhood obesity and trouble sleeping.

What your parents did, that you (rightly) resented as a kid, was to make you value your time. It made you get creative, and it forced you to concentrate and maximize your leisure time. You were a maker, not a consumer, right from the start. Whether you became a professional software developer or not as an adult doesn't matter.

Your parents did a great job in my opinion, and you no longer resent what they did! Win, win!

[nemo1618]

I should clarify that what I described in my post took place during adolescence (age 10+), not childhood. The case for restricting screen use during childhood is more clear.

>It made you get creative, and it forced you to concentrate and maximize your leisure time.

Creative in coming up with ways to evade authority, perhaps. I was intensely paranoid of my parents discovering me on the computer. It sure was great having my adrenaline spike every half hour or so whenever I heard my mother's footsteps on the stairs. That sort of dynamic is hardly conducive to creative work. Instead, I gravitated towards short-form games, and I mastered the art of Alt-Tabbing. That's how I learned to "maximize my leisure time." I rarely risked playing long-form team-based games with my friends (e.g. StarCraft, DotA) because getting kicked off the computer meant letting my whole team down.

My parents did not succeed in reducing the amount of time I spent on the computer. They succeeded only in causing me to associate the computer with feelings of guilt, shame, and resentment; they succeeded in convincing me that there was something wrong with me.

Look, I'm not a parent, so I am missing some perspective. I understand that parents are people too, with full-time jobs and myriad other responsibilities; they don't always have time to sit down and connect with their kids. Overall, it seems incredibly difficult to instill proper values in a child without also instilling some neuroses along the way. That is why I am able to forgive my parents. But forgiving them does not mean that I agree with their actions. They fell into the old trap -- "People fear what they do not understand" -- and their knee-jerk reaction was to treat me like a drug addict, subjecting me to verbal abuse, constant monitoring, and the occasional "this-time-we're-serious" intervention. You can do better.

[EdSharkey]

I was raised catholic, so I hear you on instilled neuroses.

I think your parents' success lies in their making the screen a finite/precious resource for you. Whatever their motives, and however inartful they were, it still had the outcome of making you choosy and resourceful. Sure you might be a bit type-a on some things today as a result, but at least you have an idea why that is.

I dunno ... Given how bad most people appear to be at parenting, I'd say on the whole you scored.

Did you wind up with a good paying job? Would you say you are faring better than a majority of your peers? I'd say if you can get out of your 20's debt free, you'll be a model person.

[nemo1618]

Perhaps. I won't argue that my parents, on the whole, raised me very well. I wasn't aware of this at all until I had some distance from them, and heard about/experienced other people's parents, who tended to fall into either "helicopter" or "absent."

I left college to start a company (a decision that, I note, my parents were incredibly supportive of), and I have no debt. I wouldn't consider myself a model person; I don't take very good care of my body, I have poor work/life separation, and I am currently wallowing in mild depression. I think too much and do too little. But on the whole, I have a solid base to build upon, and I can thank my parents for that.

Thanks for the perspective. I had internalized a lot of these issues and never tried to lay them all out, so this was therapeutic.

[EdSharkey]

Ok, good. Take care buddy! That's impressive you have a business and no debt, seriously. Hang your hat on that one.

Anyhow, I got on eHarmony and after 6 months of searching, I found my wife and cleared my mild depression right up. ;) Gave me an excuse to look after the appearance, health, etc. Check it out, their matching algorithm is really good and it's not a meat market like the other dating sites.

[daodedickinson]

Interests today are so niche and constantly assaulted by "innovation" and "disruption", I think it is very rare to share an interest with parents.

Books like Faded Mosaic and Together Alone have documented well that there are not cultures in the first world; can cultures only be re-established by force as when Hundred Schools of Thought were (admittedly in a limited fashion) by the First Emperor of the Qin dynasty? Some might think rational persuasion to a center is possible, but I think such rationality has a common core as a prerequisite, and that for this reason, the concern for culturelessness, and not (perhaps merely) raw academic performance, a Common Core is proposed.

[ardeay]

Great comment. I've passed it along to a friend in a similar situation with their kids.