Implicit in your objection are two assumptions I suspect are false:
• That not having access to technology at home for one year will have a meaningful impact on digital fluency 10+ years later.
• That in the technology vacuum no other skills or furtherment will develop which outweigh any minor delay in digital fluency.
I'm far more worried about what kids miss out on by being immersed in (distracting) technology than the negative consequences of them having a little less of it.
I don't buy that. Once kids are around 10 or maybe even as late as 12 or so, sure, if they aren't connected via whatever social media or messaging platform their peers are using, there will be severe social consequences. But a 3-year-old doesn't need to be watching things on a tablet at the dinner table. A 7-year-old doesn't need "access to modern tools", at least not unfettered, whenever-they-want access.
I also don't buy the argument that they'll be behind in digital skills or whatever. I was born in the 80s and didn't have access to a computer until I was 8 or 9, (intermittent dial-up) internet access until I was in my teens, and a smartphone until I was nearly 30. I had no problem acquiring all these "digital skills".
Neither of us have any data here, but I really doubt this is true. I suspect that any deficiency in technical skills at, say, age 12, can quickly be overcome. But the downsides in terms of problems with social, emotional, and behavioral development from being exposed to technology 24/7 from a young age seems like it might be much more difficult to overcome.
My position is that moderate and supervised technology use from a young age probably is the best path, but if the choice was between two extremes of “unrestricted access from 0-10 years old” and “no access from 0-10”, I think the latter is the choice that I’d make. I highly doubt my kids would be at a long-term disadvantage.
Thank you for this discussion. I’m generally in agreement with your sentiment.
This is something my wife and I have been discussing. We’re planning on homeschooling our children, which means we’ll get to dictate how much screen exposure they’ll get.
I’m convinced that these devices are only making us dumber — sure, on one hand, we (most folks in society today) can be more efficient, but on the other hand, we struggle with retaining even some of the most basic information due to our strong dependence on technology.
As a computer nerd, my home is obviously filled with computers and related devices, but I don’t want my children growing up in an environment where everyone around them is dependent on technology to survive.
They're not being raised without tech at all, they just don't have their own devices, or any open access to one.
Their screen time is limited to a small amount of passive consumption per week (2 * 1/2hr episodes on Netflix per week, or a movie), and engaged or creative use of a tablet for about 2h/week. Lately that's been drawing tutorials on youtube, duolingo, wordle.
We're pushing off allowing them to have their own phones for as long as possible. We're friends with a lot of families with the same approach, but also a lot of friends of my older (10yo) kid do have phones already. At some point it will be very difficult when they start getting left out of the party (so to speak).
My best case scenario is that the extra time this frees up will give them the space in their lives to grow talents and health that they wouldn't otherwise. I'm much happier to see my sons getting really good at pencil drawing and playing soccer than having a social media profile or being good at some video game. I feel having a really healthy body and some old school analogue skills like drawing will carry them further than whatever general digital distractions have to offer.
Problem is that plenty of those kids will wont have the opportunity to explore that interest since they wont have a computer to access. Even poor homes used to have a computer at home since it was such a useful device, but then they switched to smartphones and having a computer is becoming a class issue again.
Yes, but the key takeaway from what you quoted is that they are creating an equal space where all kids are equally offline. The argument very much is not that all tech is bad, just that you should probably not give unfettered access to the internet to someone who's brain isn't fully formed
I agree. Kids don't need these types of concerns and distractions in their formative years. And computers are inherently distracting—as the intrinsic design of modern computers ensures that's the case.
Thankfully, my primary education was before computer tech in schools or I'd have been sidetracked by the technology and it's pretty certain I'd have learned much less. Even by that age I was fascinated by electronic stuff and invariably I'd have pull it apart or tested it to destruction.
Right, had I had the tech I'd have lost out on two accounts, not only would I have been distracted by it but I'd have likely lost it or rendered it useless by the time exams came around. Not having the compulsory tech necessary for exams would have added further unecessary stress and distraction.
Is this an anecdote? E.g. I assume you are calling this a tremendous risk because you have seen it first-hand negatively affect your own kids mental development?
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of less tech = probably better for young kids, your comment reads as FUD. 15 minutes a day watching youtube is probably fine and will likely have minimal effect on development compared to other factors.
Well I don't have kids but I agree that forbidding the use of tech is not good for them because sooner or later they will have their own and that's how their future will be.
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.
I certainly wouldn't argue with how anyone else raises their children, but I think it has been hugely beneficial to restrict access to technology early in my kids' lives. It can be introduced as they get older without worrying about them falling behind
People don't realize that a lot of people with large tech exposure severely restrict access to things like phones/laptops. Gates and Jobs come to mind iirc.
There's tons of research showing that exposure to toys decreases creativity and the ability to play on your own with improvised toys. Learning how to use an operating system is trivial with the help of google. All of the arguments for letting your kids have unfettered access to electronics rest on the faulty assumption that familiarity is the important part of learning how to solve technical problems or to gain interest in technical subjects when there's just no consistent evidence to show this.
I think his point was that this would be a very bad end result. If there are no desktops or laptops in a household it becomes very hard for a kid to be immersed in development from a young age as tablets and phones are almost exclusively meant for consumption.
The flip side is children do not need to be exposed to tech at a young age in order to natively learn it. Many of us grew up with VCRs, limited computer access, no phones. And we have learned how to both use and directly build some of the most sophisticated digital technology in the world today.
You could raise a kid in a cave for the first 10 years of their life before giving them their first glimpse of a screen and by age 13 they’ll be on the same level as every other kid regarding technological literacy. It’s totally a valid parenting strategy to be skeptical of the value of screens for children.
I had unrestricted (dial up) internet access from a very young age and I _do not_ think it was good for me. I don't think having that access in my pocket at all times would have helped either (I didn't get smartphone until I was out of college in 2013).
Despite all the rules I've outlined in this thread, I really do believe in giving my kids as much freedom and autonomy as possible. I do not want to manage their time, I do want them to pursue their own interests and grow into their own person.
That being said, developing brains are not adult brains. It is a parent's job to fill in for that immature prefrontal cortex when needed. I can't expect a child to handle the asymmetric onslaught of the attention economy without negative side-effects. Have you seen the manipulative kids content on YouTube? How can a kid escape the recommendations tab with thumbnail after thumbnail specifically designed to draw them in?
So I will work with my kids to learn how use technology without experiencing all the ill-effects. At the end of the day, technology is just one of many tools they will use throughout life -- I don't let them use the bandsaw without help yet either. We'll make adjustments as they get older, but at age 7 things are still pretty hands-on.
My child (now sixteen) has had unfettered access to technology and the internet since he was about four years old. He's had old tablets and laptops, and a mobile phone (since about the age of nine). I don't monitor his use, or use parental controls. He's familiar with macOS, Windows and Linux, and can build his own PC. I fail to see any negative effects with my attitude towards his use of tech.
You keep misinterpreting what I have said. Nowhere I have written that I didn't have access to a computer at home or that kids should not have a private computer. I really don't understand why you keep hammering this point.
What is your reasoning behind that? This is seriously one of the dumbest "kids these days" statements I've ever read. Kids will become technologically sophisticated, many kids already are. Many kids will attain higher technical proficiency than you ever had, for example. Why would it be otherwise?
The existence of computers, and increasingly realistic behavior of hardware and software, does not deprive anyone of anything. Rather, raising children entirely on Surface and TV, or with no technology at all, leaves them ill-prepared for the real world.
I'm hoping to expose my children to all kinds of technology. I hope they come away from these experiences with the same sense of wonder and awe as I do. But I'm still planning on cleaning finger paint off the walls.
• That not having access to technology at home for one year will have a meaningful impact on digital fluency 10+ years later.
• That in the technology vacuum no other skills or furtherment will develop which outweigh any minor delay in digital fluency.
I'm far more worried about what kids miss out on by being immersed in (distracting) technology than the negative consequences of them having a little less of it.
reply