Screen-Free Childhood

[Phoebe]

, but the takeaway can be expressed simply: I wish I had done this with my kids. If there is one thing I regret doing, especially with kid #3, it's letting them have time with screened devices.

I was lulled into a false sense of security on this issue because kid 1 LOVED screens, so we spent huge amounts of time reading to her and offering up other options instead, and that worked. Then kid 2 wasn't fond of screen-type things, far preferring to play with real people and dolls and crayons and such, so we didn't need any plan to rid ourselves of screens. Then kid 3 came along and we let him look at our phone or his tablet or Octonauts or whatever, and only later did we realize that unlike kid 2, this was the wrong kid for that plan. His particular brain also needs constant challenge, which is not always easy, and it IS easy to say here, play this chess game on my phone while I... very easy to get a false sense that what you're doing is ok because you can see him learning how to kick your butt in chess (sometimes). But it's still a screen and not a ball or a bike or a doll or whatever, and that is the problem. I have a major goal for the next four months of trying to almost totally eliminate screens from Kid #3's life, and we shall see what happens. I don't expect to get to zero, but it sure seems worth a try. Even if screens slip back in during the school year, at least the bulk of the day is being spent away from them. In summer it seems crucial to always have something else on the menu. For now the plan is a great deal of reliance on legos and outdoor painting.

[Kyle]

Screens are a necessary part of being an adult. So with almost all things that kids are going to have to learn to use and manage responsibly, I don't keep them from using handheld devices, ipads or whatever. They're fine.

When we were kids, are parents were told they were bad parents for letting kids watch television. That was crap.

There was a point in time where it was considered bad parenting to let your kids read fiction. That was also crap.

We live in an age of instant information, which is an incredibly powerful tool for education. My daughter wouldn't have been passionate about yoga if she hadn't been able to follow people online and find different opportunities through her screens. My youngest-- and by far the most genius of all my children-- spends the most time in front of screens and is the go to "tech guy" source for everyone in our family, even though he's only nine. Screens don't impair, impede or damage your child's upbringing. I think it can help expand those experiences.

None of this has stunted my children's experiences. Even though their screen time is, and always has been, pretty much unlimited (there was a brief period of rationing of videogames, but only because there was only one machine and so many kids), they are still what you would consider country kids-- constantly outside, hiking at LEAST twice a week, roaming the neighborhood looking for adventures every day. An example- we were swimming in a local watering hole this weekend in Austin-- which was primarily populated by city folks trying to get out in the good weather. At one point someone saw a snake in the water and over a dozen people screamed and started evacuating the area. You could easily spot my kids as the only five who were going towards the sighting so they could identify the snake and catch it if it wasn't poisonous (it was).

That's just me and my wife, though. Most of our parenting is done in the style of: "Well kid, do what you want and let's see what choices you make. We'll discuss it with you after you've made them." If I noticed that screen time was somehow detrimental to one of my kids, then absolutely I would intervene and I think you're doing the right thing. But this guy is advocating it for everyone, and I think that's horseshit.

I don't put much stock in the "proof" of things like this being "his kids turned out great and thanked him for it." Of course they did. That's their dad. My kids are doing the same thing for me and my wife even though we've adopted the exact opposite approach.

[Tahlvin]

What Kyle said.

We have at times had to limit the amount of time kid #3 spends on devices, due to him missing homework assignments or having attitude problems (at several points, him spending too much time playing video games would make him cranky and ill-mannered when he was not playing games). He's old enough now that he's figured out how it works, and he's got enough control of his emotions (and grown out of the worst of his hyperactivity), so it's not much of a problem anymore at all. It was never much of an issue with kids #1 & #2.

This just seems like more of the "holier-than-thou" parenting crap that's all too common. There's more than one way to raise a great child, and even children in the same family need different approaches. That worked for him and his kids, great for them. I'm thrilled with how my kids seem to be turning out, and I took the opposite approach (like Kyle and his kids).

[Kyle]

Yeah- Tahlvin reminded me- I take screen time away as a punishment, but not for the purpose of limiting screen time, but to take away a privilege from a child that's misbehaved.

[Phoebe]

I am glad that these methods worked out well for other people and their kids, but the criticisms above aren't really fair to this guy or his arguments. Like he was saying in the interview, what constitutes a truly great childhood? Is it one spent sitting passively before the screen, or is it one that involves a multiplicity of learning experiences, including different physical experiences? Is he wrong about the reality of those little boys who come over to visit and aren't sure what else to do together if they can't play videogames?

For families that have a lot of good stuff going on outside the screens - which is obviously true for both of yours - the use of computers and tv and videogames is being balanced or shaped by all kinds of other experiences. That's precisely what this guy is talking about. Technology can be used toward productive ends that go beyond it, like when the internet connects you to people doing yoga, which involves, you know, actual yoga being done outside the computer! Is that the norm for kids' use of screens? I doubt it. If kids were spending relatively little time around screens compared to other activities, or if they really needed to spend time around screens to be good with technology, then perhaps it would be a different story. But most kids in the U.S. don't grow up in a physical environment conducive to things like regular hiking, or in families where lots of time and attention can be devoted to ensuring a diversity of learning experiences.

For people frustrated with that mode of living, or who are encountering some of its ill-effects, this guy has a great message. It's not just "limit screens" - he wants us to think about what constitutes flourishing, for both the kids and adults. Are families and kids flourishing when adults themselves use these tools more often? Even at work, are we doing good creative work when we use computers less as tools and more as a constant distraction and entertainment throughout the day? I think he's right about that. The important creative work happens when you put the tool aside and talk to people or think about things. Then you can go pick up the tool again and make something go.

Anyway, I would go on about the damage done by TV but it's enough... I don't think it was crap that TV was harmful. Look at what it has done to our polity, if nothing else.

[Tahlvin]

But the focus of the article, especially the intro, was about limiting the scrren time and not even letting them have any before age 10. It wasn't about balance or providing diverse experiences for the kids. It's common sense, although that may be rare, that kids need physical activity and need exposure to a broad range of experiences and activities. By focusing on the use of electronic devices and eliminating or limiting their use, it just comes across as preachy, and your a bad parent if you let your kids use devices.

And I develop and support software for a living, so I use my computer all day, everyday for work. All three of my kids have shown interest in careers in software development, taking CS classes in school and playing around in their free time. The skills they're developing playing around, at least some of them, are things they'll be able to apply to a career later on.

[Bonefish]

What constitutes a "great" childhood? Isn't that a little bit subjective? Like, do kids really grow up thinking it was "Great" to go do all these "character building" exercises their parent wants them to do?

[Phoebe]

It's a lot subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't say anything true or general about it. I agree with Kyle's point above that the support for one method or another, or one set of values or another, isn't going to come from what kids themselves say after the fact. Lots of kids are happy with upbringings we might consider awful or contrary to our values.

So the issue is, what kind of childhood DO we consider valuable? And I think all of us (well, I don't know Bonefish as well, but maybe...) agree that there are much better things for kids than lots of time spent in front of a screen. Are most kids spending too much time in that way relative to other pursuits nowadays? I'm convinced that answer is yes. The solution doesn't have to be some preachy purity standard - no way. Here I stand as counterexample anyway. But I just can't think of a single thing my son gained from using a device with a screen that he couldn't have gained better in some other way. Is ten the magic age? I don't know... I'd like child age 13 to spend more time outside or more time painting or knitting. It's the reasons behind this guy's plan that make it worth consideration, not the purity level of the implementation effort, or trying to foist it on others.

[Bonefish]

I mean, My childhood was spent wandering the woods, creeks and building primitive man traps. And my younger cousins seem to respond well to a similar exposure. Sure, they play with phones and tablets, but they also paint, shoot pellet guns, and play with wooden swords. And run around wearing keffiyah's screaming and raising three degrees of hell.

If you think your kids are using screens too much, then, I guess, Take them away. But I have yet to encounter a kid who doesn't like fun, real world stuff over the screens. Maybe they don't like the stuff you like, but, they like to do stuff that is real.

[Phoebe]

That is no longer the norm for kids, unfortunately. Most US kids live in urban or suburban areas and spend more time with screens than they do playing outdoors or in physical exercise of other kinds. All of this is super well documented; I am just reciting the research. Childhood obesity has multiple causes but this is one. ADHD has many causes but less screens plus being outdoors ameliorates effects. Kids even do better on math tests when they've been permitted to take walks outdoors first.

So another simple solution is: go outside! But a corollary solution is, put down the phone tablet computer TV and do something else. Figure out, like this guy is suggesting, what kind of family you really want to have and how these devices are affecting it. People who have already done this might find the advice unnecessary, but wow, look at how many people are moving the other direction. Pushback welcome, imo.

[Kyle]

[Phoebe]

[Kyle]

Nevermind. I think you're a fine parent. Do what you want.

[Phoebe]

That is kind of you to say! I am trying, anyway. I do appreciate the other opinions people have about this, always edifying.

[El Jefe]

[Phoebe]

Okay, now that I can sit down and concentrate for a moment, let me try to communicate about this again. I'm honestly surprised by the reactions to this topic above, not only El Jefe's immediately above, and am wondering if there is more to the story I should know about this guy in the interview, or if I've somehow stumbled onto a minefield of argument I didn't realize was a minefield, or what.

Let me explain where I was coming from. Most children in the US spend a LOT of time using screens nowadays, to the detriment of time they could have spent doing other things. In particular, they get less physical activity than recommended. The reason why the AAP has been issuing guidelines on this for the past few decades is that significant research suggests potential harms: learning difficulties, speech delays, and things like diabetes and obesity which could be indirect results of sitting around watching something rather than getting up and doing something else. I was already familiar with some research about how developing brains are affected either by the screen-use itself or by the diversion from other activities that might be involved. I was still letting my kids use the computer, the tv, the tablet, whatever, but I tried to limit that use where appropriate and make it a more engaging use when possible, rather than merely a passive one. Then I read one of Temple Grandin's books where she describes some unique risks for kids who have atypical brains of the sort people sometimes tell me that my son and daughter and I have (which I don't believe, but I'm not going to be a stupid ostrich about it either), and it struck me as profoundly insightful. I started re-thinking the value of any of this stuff for the five year old, in particular, and had a new set of concerns about the teenager.

That's where I was upon reading this interview. I'm not repeating this to be an asshole, but what that guy said is not getting a charitable much less fair hearing. He presented no rigid dilemma between "use of screens" and "flourishing great childhood". He did not insist that other people must do it his way. Indeed, that's one of the things I liked about his approach, because he wasn't saying, okay, take away the screens and suddenly you've done a good parenting. Instead, he's inviting people to reconsider what the role of these things in family life might be, and whether their kids are having the kinds of experiences they value most. It's about the adults' way of living as much as the kids, which is another reason I liked his approach. The idea that developing brains need a multiplicity of experiences, including physical, embodied experiences that go beyond sitting in front of a tv or tablet, is not "one-true-way"-ism. If anything, it's a mere truism, except that kids in the US are not living in such a way that it goes without saying.

Several of you have argued against this by pointing out the variety of benefits that use of the internet and such offers to kids. Can someone explain to me in earnest how this point is relevant and not a straw man? If the argument was that the internet offers little benefit, then it would make sense to point out that this is false, and that it can be a trove of useful information, social connection, and whatever else. But that is not the issue, either for me or for this guy interviewed or for the AAP, for that matter. It's why they say things like "engage with your kid when watching tv", as opposed to plunking the kid down in front of the TV without the engagement piece. It's why that guy pointed out, the teenagers he studied wished their parents would disengage with the devices and engage more with the teenager. But it is also true that even though use of a cell phone screen has taught my son to play chess, it would be a bad idea for me to leave it up to the phone and not try to play chess with him myself, though it's probably like playing with a bad golfer and getting worse in the process. I shouldn't let him do things like this for hours a day - the average hours, let's say, that gradeschool kids use screens! - instead of making him go outside or do something else.

My goal is to spend the whole summer like that. I have no expectation of cutting him off cold turkey from learning that happens conveniently with a computer. For pete's sake, this morning he wanted to know what a neutron star was and ok googled it all up for me on the phone. But I'd like that to be happening while we're out walking together, or making a boat out of legos or whatever. I'd rather be helping his hand-eye coordination by teaching him to crochet than playing a videogame; I'd rather he helped us build a new computer or play with the raspberry pi, if we're going to do computer things. This is an effort at pushback against a powerful and alluring force in his life that he already gets plenty of; it's not a purity test for good parenting or whatever.

I'm not trying to impute motives to other people rudely; my best guess is that people who aren't involved in this kind of pushback effort might see this differently. I'm not sure this guy's message is directed at people who are happy with the balance of the use of technology in their lives, and whose kids are already having diverse experiences that benefit them. It's not that I'm unhappy or that my kids are having lousy experiences, but it's not yet what I would prefer. I spent enormous portions of my youth outdoors, running around doing all kinds of crazy things. My kids are simply not having these experiences. In some cases, it's for the best, as I don't want them doing things on or under railroad bridges. In other respects, it's not okay. They ride bikes a fraction of the time I did, they play outdoors with friends less, they have fewer domestic skills than I had, and so on. In other ways they're far more advanced than I was at their age - like their facility with music is far greater, because we poured the time into that, or they're doing organized sports at an age when I was just beginning, and so on. The point is, this isn't just about screens, but about what you value and want to invest time in. Is technology proving to be an aid or a distraction to that? I am surprised people don't consider that an important or interesting question; I mean, maybe forget the linked interview if that's the problem.

[Tahlvin]

My hang-up is the statements that he didn't let his kids use any screens until age 10. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole article because I don't have time; I read the intro and the first few Q&As. If you like his message, great. But the whole "no screens until age 10" message at the beginning, it comes across as the frequent, preachy, you're-a-fucking-awful-parent-if-you-don't-do-things-my-way articles that I've seen far too many of over the 20+ years I've been a parent. Perhaps that's just the way the writer of the article is presenting things and not the way the man feels, but that's the impression I got from reading the parts I read. That certainly may be pre-existing biases on my part affecting my interpretation.

For me, it's common sense: too much of ANYTHING, whether that's spending time on devices, or even spending time in sports to the exclusion of reading books or playing, etc., is not the best thing for the kids. If what he wants is balance, that's fine. If what he wants is the parents to engage with the children, I'm fine, although that's certainly not a possibility for everyone (hello, single parents working two jobs just to feed the kids!). But when he takes it to the extreme of completely eliminating screens up to a certain age, and that's the message the author is pushing in the intro to the article, I start to tune him out.

[Phoebe]

Okay, fair enough. That's understandable. The extreme position could simply be off-putting from the start.

[Tahlvin]

Also, I know people who raise their kids with the "No TV", or "only educational TV" approach. And I have to say, I find their kids to be more socially awkward with their peers than general. They can converse very well with adults, and they are intelligent and well read. But they can't relate as well with other kids their own age. It's an admittedly small sample size, and it's not necessarily cause/effect. But I know with our son, he talked to his friends about some of the popular cartoons, or the latest updates to Minecraft, like stereotypical men would discuss sports around the water cooler. I'm not saying you need to let your kids binge watch whatever shows they want, or that it's okay for parents to disengage and let the kid just veg in front of the boob tube. But completely removing all access to contemporary, age-appropriate pop culture, it can make it more difficult for a child to relate to his/her peers.

[El Jefe]