If you are bored, you can now go on your phone until you are anxious instead. You could also make other choices, but that seems to be the default.
Before there were phones, we had books, and our parents complained about those, too.
But there is a difference, that the book doesn't show you ads and notifications, and the content is timeless (at least on a short time scale) so it doesn't urge you to read faster. It was easy to switch between reading a book and daydreaming. With phones, you keep scrolling.
I guess my point is that the phones are not a problem per se, but rather the way they are made. I have a similar impression about computer games: in the MS DOS era, you bought the game, you played the game, it was over. Today, the game is trying to make you spend as much time playing it as possible (not all games) so that it can show you more ads, or sell you add-ons, or whatever. The key difference is "something that provides you some fun, but it lets you choose the speed and amount", and "something that keeps nagging you".
It’s one thing for someone to have to do [X]. And it’s good to explain it’s because [Y]. [...]
I guess this is one those things that seems obvious to some people, and incomprehensible to others.
Long time ago, I was a member of one group (details are not important) that previously used voting to decide what we will do, but someone came with the great idea to use "consensus" instead. What that meant in practice, was that my sometimes unorthodox opinions were not only defeated in voting, but completely erased.
Previously, at least there remained a written record "6 members in favor, 1 member against, the final decision is to do it", but now all the official output was either "the group achieved a consensus to do it" or the decision was delayed. I didn't want to paralyze the group completely, but I wanted to have a record of my objection, for a possible "I told you" moment in future.
Also, consensus basically makes diversity impossible, because if one person has different opinions, unless they give up completely, the group will be paralyzed... and the person will be perceived as someone who prefers to sabotage the group rather than to "be reasonable". So this guarantees that members will learn never to vote for someone who is not fully on board with the existing dominant belief.
With voting, the balance of powers might gradually shift from 7:0 and 6:1 maybe to 5:2 and 4:3 and then maybe switch. With consensus, the only options are 7:0 or things blow up. Non-destructive change is impossible. If you are not the kind of person who would destroy the group just to get their way, your rights were effectively taken away. And it is framed as being nice; "consensus" is such a friendly word, as opposed to the hostility of "voting".
And with kids, it's the same, only they are too small to articulate the problem, maybe even to understand it clearly.
Sorry for saying a potentially sensitive thing, but it seems to me that men are more likely to understand this, and women are more likely to not understand this. Men compete by nature. Women form cliques by nature.
Similarly, the problem with boredom is that kids complain about it, and as a parent, you are not supposed to tell them "too bad, this is my final decision", but you need to find a... consensus. But when the kids are bored, that is precisely when they have unlimited time and motivation to annoy you.
ADHD and boys -- uhm, this feels like we keep talking about the same things from many perspectives. We have declared masculinity and everything related to it to be pathological. Now we face the consequences, and we can't address them because there is a taboo on even talking about it openly.
I think people without kids underestimate how much children’s programming is inundated with propaganda that’s a combination of anti-capitalism, anti-development, and climate doom.
Blaze and the Monster Machines is definitely pro-technology, and seems quite popular, even among girls.
Walking is surprisingly ‘meaningful.’
Walking is similar to boredom, in the sense that your mind is not much occupied. But at the same time, it is not completely boring. And it good for your health. And you can sometimes do it together with friends.
And doing homework together is a 4.6 and alone it’s a 4.2?
Seems similar to coworking and working alone.
Between 80 and 87 percent of kids in families with incomes of less than $100,000 had smartphones, while only 67 percent of kids in families making $150,000 or more did. [...] Are the richer families making a gigantic mistake? What did they see?
I guess the richer people are generally going in the right direction, but too far, or too dogmatically. It is okay to protect your children against things that are clearly out to get them... and that is good. But then they go too far and reject the use of technology as a tool... and that is bad.
What we need is to educate parents about distinguishing the good and bad in technology, and to find ways that have more of the good and less of the bad. Maybe, buy your kids a phone, but limit which applications they can use? Let them call the parent-approved numbers, use the phone for photos or navigation. Block the games.
Not sure about the social networks, as they seem to inseparably mix the good and bad on purpose. For example, I don't want my kids to spend the whole day texting. But it is extremely useful that they can e.g. coordinate with their friends about going to playground. (My 7 years old was never so motivated to turn off the computer and run outside when a message comes.) For this purpose, apps like Whatsapp are good; Facebook is bad, because it bundles the messaging with all kinds of time-wasting activities.
On references: I find it baffling how much of a cultural disconnect I feel between myself (born 1987) and almost anyone <~5-8 yrs younger than me. I can easily have conversations with people in their 70s and get at least a majority of their references, but go just a few years in the other direction and (for a recent example) I'll talk to a coworker who not only had never seen Seinfeld but had never heard of the Soup Nazi. Or (for another) a trivia night where the hosts not only didn't know Anaconda sampled Baby Got Back but were somehow confused by the concept of sampling and didn't know it was a thing. I always expected to feel this way when I was old about people much younger than me, but this is a very stark, sharp divide. Anything's possible, but I find it hard to believe this could be unrelated to being one of the last cohorts to remember life without the internet and social media.
One thing I've noticed in the last few years (of full-time RV travel) is how much just being somewhere, and feeling the differences between places and the relative positions of places, has improved my own ability to put mental scaffolding around things I already abstractly knew, and to really, intuitively feel how pieces of US history and ecology and geology and culture all fit together. A lot of information I already had now makes much more sense, and is more connected. I've seen it with kids I've met being raised on the road too. Living too much online seems to be the opposite effect.
full-time RV travel
kids I’ve met being raised on the road
This sounds really interesting! Do you write about it somewhere? Or can you share some impressions?
Mostly my wife handles our blog. We wrote about the trivia example in this post.
We don't tend to write about anyone's kids, for obvious reasons, and I don't have kids of my own. But there are a lot of full-time families with youtube channels and blogs that roadschool their kids. See here for a perspective similar to what I said above. I can say, in general, kids who spend months or more on the road exploring with their families seem to be more independent, more aware, more curious, and more able to interact with people and things around them, than others their age.
Edition #9, that School is Hell, turned out to hit quite the nerve.
Thus, I’m going to continue with the system of making the roundups have more focus in their themes, with this one being the opposite of school questions, except for the question of banning phones in schools which seemed to fit.
Table of Contents
Metal Health
If you are bored, you can now go on your phone until you are anxious instead. You could also make other choices, but that seems to be the default.
Coercion
I’m not always with Žižek, but here I’m with Žižek.
This goes so much farther than children. You see it in so many other situations as well.
It’s one thing for someone to have to do [X]. And it’s good to explain it’s because [Y].
It’s another to have to want to do [X], and ‘prove’ to everyone that you ‘want’ to do [X].
Or even worse, to have to prove that you want to do [X] specifically because of [Y].
Or to have to do [X] and like it. Look, I’m enjoying this. I’m having a good time.
There is the version of asking for such a choice where the child, or the anyone else, is actually free to say no – you really are asking them to consider how much grandma loves them, but if they decide not to go, then that really is allowed and not punished.
Alas, this version is rare.
Game Theoretically Sound Discipline
You do have to be able to tell the difference.
Indeed. Most of the time that children are acting like they are in acute distress, and they are not rather obviously in actual acute distress, they are doing a strategic action to create the outcomes and incentives they want, or following through on their negotiating positions to establish credibility, and so on. I have mad respect for that. You must respond in kind as needed.
You are still the adult. You can tell, if you pay attention, which is which. If school really is hell, or there is otherwise something really wrong? It will rapidly become clear that this is the case.
I strongly endorse the principle that if you are exercising your authority as a parent, or have made your final decision, you need to own it. You should not pretend to be seeking consensus or manufacturing consent. It does not help anyone to pull a But Thou Must.
There will of course be situations where you start out asking, and then at some point you are no longer asking, because time runs out or the situation otherwise changes. Again, one should be clear, and not give false choices.
The Joy of Doing Nothing
I too spent a lot of time with remarkably little ‘to do,’ and I too watched a remarkably large amount of The Price Is Right, which has its value but definitely isn’t an efficient educational option. At some points yes I think I watched Young and the Restless, I remember it being terrible. Not ideal, but It was, very obviously, fine.
As with many things, there’s a big difference between ‘this is a good idea’ and ‘this is not the best idea but it’s not a huge deal.’ I think lots of essentially wasted time in this sense falls into the second category. I don’t buy the full Garrion Keilor ‘the kids need to actively be bored,’ but they do need breaks without pressure, and if that time is mostly wasted that is fine, the optimal amount of that is not zero.
ADHD Exists But So Do Boys
We have decided that existing while boy all but counts as having ADHD.
We put the ADHD diagnosis on 15.5% of American adolescents, 21% of 14-year-old boys and 23% of 17-year-old boys, for a total of seven million American children.
Yes, ADHD is very obviously a real thing. I’ve seen it. And yes, rates of actual ADHD are likely somewhat higher than they used to be, for various reasons.
This is still very obviously an epidemic of overdiagnosis. It is way of expressing a preference for being willing to sit still for long periods of time.
In the past, if not playing along? You’d force them to, or else. We now think that’s bad.
Nowadays, not playing along? Deploy the meth. That’s much better, you see.
Sports Go Sports
Telling kids, in particular boys, what not to do is not a good strategy. Never works.
What does work is to give them positive things to do instead, and positive status hierarchies to climb by doing so.
He cites the classic failure mode, the old DARE anti-drug problem, which warns you not to do drugs so kids respond by doing drugs more.
On the Big Screen
I found this take intriguing.
My experience is more ‘big screen is dangerous, small screen is way worse.’
The big screen is better, somehow providing a better experience and also a less zombifying or addictive one. However, at least in my experience, that doesn’t mean kids don’t threaten to go complete zombie if you aren’t careful. You absolutely have to watch screen time and content if you don’t want that to happen, no matter how big the screen might be.
Kids Media Is Often Anti-Capitalist Propaganda
Not all of it. But quite a lot of it. It is remarkably hard to avoid.
I get the many reasons why this is the natural outcome of the types of people making kids TV making TV for kids. Similar forces also cause a lot of vegetarian advocacy. It’s all really, truly obnoxious and I think it does a lot of very real damage.
Culture
Content consumed by children used to be made by adults, whether or not it was aimed at children, and was generally not ephemeral or optimized too hard for short term engagement, which gave motivation and opportunity to learn references and cultural touchstones. Now much of the content is short form and optimized in hyper-competitive landscapes, so there’s no slack for Parental Bonus or being secretly high quality or otherwise providing extra value, and much of it becomes ephemeral and of-the-moment. A shame.
But also, if you miss a reference now – whether or not it is ‘The Odyssey’ – you can not only Google it, you can ask Claude (or another LLM). And most entertainment is easy to pause so you can ask, and this should get even easier and better over time – by the end of 2025 the AI should automatically see the content you’re watching, and understand the context of your questions, which you’ll ask in voice mode, and so on.
Movies are designed for everyone to be off their phones, so they’ll be the exception, but this should give us the opportunity to do much higher-level stuff once people get used to it, since no one need get lost. I can’t even with for example War and Peace, I don’t want to have to try and keep track of all that, but once I get a Daylight Computer I probably won’t have to?
(And if you ever don’t get what something I say is referencing, or it seems like there’s another level to it, and it’s very clearly not explained and you’re curious, asking Claude is probably a good idea. I’m often very intentionally not explaining, IYKYK, etc.)
The problem is if kids go the other way and don’t want to know the references.
Travel
This model seems very right:
If you want to see your grandkids, or generally see someone with young kids, on the regular, you need to be willing to come to them more often than not. That’s life.
Phone a Friend
That’s a hell of a graph. Walking is surprisingly ‘meaningful.’ As is watching TV or movies with others, that gets you almost to 4 on this scale. And I love my kids, but ‘bathing’ and ‘looking after’ are almost as meaningful as ‘playing with’ and better than anything else? And doing homework together is a 4.6 and alone it’s a 4.2? Homework?
I could go on. Yeah, I don’t know about this chart.
I do still buy the core premise, that the things we do with others tend to be more meaningful, and that we’re doing less of them.
It’s actually worse than that, if 25% use TikTok ‘almost constantly’ and 24% to it with YouTube, and 18% for Instagram, well, not that many are ‘constantly’ doing all three?
And indeed:
I mean, I use the internet almost constantly, so maybe fair? But this is different.
The Case For Phones
Are kids with phones better off than kids without phones?
I mean, yeah, data says so, but that rather obviously is not entirely causal. To the extent it is causal it is largely a collective action problem.
If everyone else has a phone, then you not having a phone isolates you.
To be fair, further down, she does admit to the obvious big confounding issue.
This isn’t about socioeconomic status (SES). Indeed, that runs the opposite way.
They did do statistical weighting (based on parent/guardian’s education, household income, household size, child’s age by gender, and child’s race/ethnicity) but given income runs the other way that is unlikely to catch the issues. They did not control for attributes of the children prior to getting the phones or in previous years.
Are the richer families making a gigantic mistake? What did they see?
There was clear miscommunication about the time with friends numbers, which were 2.7 days/week for kids with phones versus 2.2 days/week for those without. But what’s even weirder is the same gap applies to daily video gamers (2.8 vs. 2.3) and social media users (2.7 vs. 2.2).
And then, even weirder, to tablet owners? What? Again it’s 2.8 vs. 2.3.
Then kids say they spent an average of 3.2 hours per day (!) ‘hanging out with friends online.’ To which I say, really? That’s… quite a lot, especially since it’s all respondents including those without phones. Kids reported 4.4 hours on their smartphones and tablets per school day and 6.3 per non-school day, which means the majority of that was supposedly spent ‘with friends.’
We also have this meta study of social media abstinence interventions, which finds zero effect on mental health. This is unfortunate, but what it does not mean is that everyone having phones is good for mental health.
Indeed it says the opposite, because of the isolation effect. If previously you had a phone, and now everyone but you has a phone, you are going to have a hard time coordinating with your friends, meeting with them and talking to them. That’s going to be bad for your mental health. So the fact that there was zero impact suggests that the phones are net negative.
A reader offers this list of studies on tech in schools.
Ban Cell Phones in Schools
It’s happening. New York State is banning cell phones, from bell-to-bell.
Momentum for banning phones in schools continues, from January 2025, and Colorado targets them next.
For those wondering what to do now, a school offers a guide.
Even if one concluded the peer reviewed study literature pointed in the direction in question, I refuse to be gaslit into not believing that things that are obviously happening are indeed happening, or that obviously bad for people things aren’t bad for people, purely because ‘the evidence is weak’ or any given statistic did not find an effect. Most other people are in the same boat at this point.
A new study tries out a ‘soft commitment’ app on phones they tried out at university. It successfully convinced students to reduce phone use in class, leading to improvements in classroom focus, attendance and overall academic satisfaction. However there was a substitution effect where students studied less, and only a small (statistically insignificant) increase in grades. So a soft nudge made things modestly better (but only modestly) in what seems like a Pareto improvement?
A Sobering Thought