Here's Louis CK with a very funny and at least halfway cogent argument saying they shouldn't.
http://teamcoco.com/video/louis-ck-springsteen-cell-phone (http://teamcoco.com/video/louis-ck-springsteen-cell-phone)
That puts me in a difficult position: as the most important principle of parenting in my life is that people should never coerce others, not even kids, just because they feel they know what's best for them better than they themselves do (they may or may not be right, but it's still not justified grounds for coercion), the (many) kids around this household quite freely help themselves to computing equipment. The 10, the 11, the 13, the 16 and of course the 18-year-old all have their own (shoddy but workable) computers (though the 11-year-old girl's one has been broken for a while and she doesn't seem fussed) - and yet they make eye-contact and are interested in a number of things other than computers (admittedly, at times the number is somewhat smaller thant I'd be really happy with).
I am also failing to find a piece by Charlie Stross about a new kind of person: one who never has to be lost or alone against their will. But he did make that point: what happens when most people are like that? Charlie thinks, and I think I'm with him, that it's not the end of the world, may even be the beginning of tomorrow. What do you think?
I think kids having smartphones is a damn good idea. In my observation of my kids, they are more socialized with their peers, and they never get lost. More communication is better.
The only counter-arguments I have seen are mostly crusty fuckers about my age that are convinced that everything new is bad, and that kids are all going to the dogs, and they should be playing with broken glass and chunks of concrete like we did.
Fuck that noise. There is no reason kids should have to live in the Goddamn dark ages just because a previous generation has
1. Some Luddite-esque fear of anything new, and
2. Some weird nostalgia for what was, comparitively speaking, a really miserable time in history.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 09:53:42 PM
I think kids having smartphones is a damn good idea. In my observation of my kids, they are more socialized with their peers, and they never get lost. More communication is better.
The only counter-arguments I have seen are mostly crusty fuckers about my age that are convinced that everything new is bad, and that kids are all going to the dogs, and they should be playing with broken glass and chunks of concrete like we did.
Fuck that noise. There is no reason kids should have to live in the Goddamn dark ages just because a previous generation has
1. Some Luddite-esque fear of anything new, and
2. Some weird nostalgia for what was, comparitively speaking, a really miserable time in history.
Bolded for troof.
They do, however, need to be taught proper manners and actual social skills as some point though. They are a valuable tool, but also a bad distraction. I see nothing wrong with teachers making the kids lock them up during class time, OR, finding a way to integrate it to better modern learning needs.
Quote from: Suu on October 02, 2013, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 09:53:42 PM
I think kids having smartphones is a damn good idea. In my observation of my kids, they are more socialized with their peers, and they never get lost. More communication is better.
The only counter-arguments I have seen are mostly crusty fuckers about my age that are convinced that everything new is bad, and that kids are all going to the dogs, and they should be playing with broken glass and chunks of concrete like we did.
Fuck that noise. There is no reason kids should have to live in the Goddamn dark ages just because a previous generation has
1. Some Luddite-esque fear of anything new, and
2. Some weird nostalgia for what was, comparitively speaking, a really miserable time in history.
Bolded for troof.
They do, however, need to be taught proper manners and actual social skills as some point though. They are a valuable tool, but also a bad distraction. I see nothing wrong with teachers making the kids lock them up during class time, OR, finding a way to integrate it to better modern learning needs.
I fail to see how one precludes the other.
Also, by the same token, older people should be learning the manners that apply to new technology (for example, NOT POSTING IN ALL CAPS WHEN THEY TEXT OR POST ON FACEBOOK).
Times change, and manners change (slightly) with those times.
I suppose you're right, you can harp and howl all you want about students not touching technology during class time, chances are they're going to do it anyway. So either you lock it up, or, you find a way to integrate it, which could really not work in either case. I mean, if you force a student to not carry a phone to school, or lock it up in a desk during class time, are you really doing them a favor? Or are you doing them, and yourself a disservice for being what could be perceived as a bullying teacher? Sounds very paradox-y.
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
Agreed. We can't have the youth getting A grippa.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
Okay, I take your point, and generally agree. But did you actually watch the video? Louis is no old crusty. The most cogent bit of his argument starts at 1:25, and firstly, he is claiming that if you communicate a great deal in text, you don't get the sort of emotional feedback to your experiments of meanness (and, I should add, any other kind of emotionally loaded communication) that you, as monkey, need, to calibrate your actions. I do believe this may have something to do with the somehow utterly mindless and absurd instances of cyber-bullying we get to hear about. The availability of online bullying makes it easier to become a bully. Secondly, and I think this is even more thought-worthy, starting at 1:52: "you need to develop the ability to just be yourself and not be doing something - this is what the phones are taking away - that's being a person". And I do think the phones take that away. I think that may be a good thing. But there is a listlessness, I am tempted to say shallowness (though I may well be unfair) in the young kids I meet who have gotten completely habituated to the constant availability of unlimited quality stimulation. I was not raised in that way. After desiring a book, I frequently had to wait days, nay, weeks, before I could get it. Same with music, with films. There is clearly an element of deprivation there, and if that goes away, hurray. But is there something else there, too, perhaps?
Something that was built into our generation and is not built into this new one? And exactly how does that make them different? It's as if the age of scarcity has already ended in some domains: in countries where reasonably high bandwidth internet has become a utility available in most homes, you can be quite poor in many respects (food, travel, equipment) - but have a 100-dollar computer and have the worlds intellectual riches at your feet. When do you give kids smartphones? My three-year-old is already demanding one.
Can't watch the video til I get home (it's blocked).
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 05:03:03 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 23, 2013, 03:50:37 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 21, 2013, 07:16:20 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 21, 2013, 06:24:20 PM
Louis C.K. Hates Cell Phones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c)
Hahaha I love how old people project themselves into kids. That cell phone obsession thing is totally a technology immigrant thing, kids who are raised with cell phones aren't obsessed like that.
This thing keeps making the rounds. It got a whole isolated post on Naked Capitalism, FFS. I'm pretty sure I don't give a fuck about what that guy thinks about anything.
Plus, I refuse to see those things as anything less than, as Warren Ellis put it, god damned wizardry at our fingertips.
It's basically exactly the same as all old people projecting on and railing against young people ever through all time.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 05:05:46 AM
If old people would just embrace that they are getting old and falling apart and decaying and their mental acuity and physical senses are starting to go, making the world seem confusing and hostile, instead of trying to insist that it's really that young people suck, everybody would get along much better.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2013, 02:28:23 PM
I liked that bit -- I don't think that Louis is really talking about kids. But he makes a good point about how distracting these pervasive technologies are. They have a way of hijacking our internal monologues. We use them to fill in the in-between moments moments, but sometimes it's worth spending some time there.
Right after Obama was inaugurated, I remember some reporter asking him if he had any advice for people. He said he recommended taking a little time each day to just sit and be by yourself and not be distracted by anything. Let your phone sit, don't work on anything, just take a few minutes every day to think about things. Louis gets a bit dramatic about it, but I think that's the guts of what he's saying.
I also agree with his rant about how kids should learn to be social animals through face to face interactions. It's so much easier to be irresponsible when you don't have to look somebody in the face.
If he's talking about adults, then he's right. Adults, especially older adults but really anyone who didn't grow up with these technologies, are so hopelessly enthralled by them and by their ability to check for IMPORTANT INCOMING MESSAGES that they do it constantly.
Kids, on the other hand, are as likely as not to leave their phone at home or let the batteries go dead, a scenario that would send adults into a frenzy of panic. Kids also don't have this thing where they HAVE TO CHECK THEIR EMAIL seventeen times a day. They treat it like we treat mail... they check once a day, call it good. Whatever's in there will wait, no need to be INSTANTLY AVAILABLE for everyone's whims.
As for being mean electronically... yes, kids do that. So do adults. Kids also have no problem doing it face to face. What I have seen with kids is that if they are going to develop empathy for others, they do so regardless of whether they are interacting electronically, and are LESS likely than adults to pull that "just pixels on a screen" bullshit, because they grew up using these media to communicate.
XPOST: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32818.300.html
My kids won't have smartphones until I have one.
Thanks Paes! That was pretty much all I have to say about it.
Although I will add that if you're an involved parent you don't HAVE to constantly monitor your childrens' internet use. The goal is to teach them how to function independently; you are trying to raise adults. The age at which any given child is mature enough to manage that varies; with my oldest, she really wasn't responsible enough to have any phone at all until she was 13. My youngest was ready at 9, Smartphone and everything.
Depending on the kind you get it's also fairly easy to check. Iphones are built with very effective parental controls. If they can get passed them you should probably take your kid out to celebrate their mental prowess.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
Our responsibility as the older generation to teach them to be able to use this technology unsupervised. If they don't it's our failure, as parents. It's basically the same as the time I got a bus pass from school and was given free rein, and didn't get into any trouble. My parents may have screwed up in some areas (whose doesn't?), but they at least taught me to not get myself in a bad spot if they weren't looking.
Holist, kudos. I understand your ambivalence, but this is a good thread.
The thread title reminds me of CU. "Kids N Drugs", "Kids N Sex", "Kids N Sliding Down A Mountain Of Busted Beer Bottles On Your Belly"...
Quote from: stelz on October 03, 2013, 05:12:46 AM
The thread title reminds me of CU. "Kids N Drugs", "Kids N Sex", "Kids N Sliding Down A Mountain Of Busted Beer Bottles On Your Belly"...
Really? I only remember him as eDemocracy and hijacking the Bar and Grill. And talking about being an oppressed Englishman in Scotland.
Not enough Nostalgia, and advocates of porn by candlelight in this thread.
Quote from: Twigel on October 03, 2013, 05:16:12 AM
Quote from: stelz on October 03, 2013, 05:12:46 AM
The thread title reminds me of CU. "Kids N Drugs", "Kids N Sex", "Kids N Sliding Down A Mountain Of Busted Beer Bottles On Your Belly"...
Really? I only remember him as eDemocracy and hijacking the Bar and Grill. And talking about being an oppressed Englishman in Scotland.
And him trying to show that Roger was in fact the horrible bastard out to get him and ruin Discordia via youtube video where he showed nothing more than the fact that he and Roger were PM, no content, scroll past the whole thing and when I mentioned that nothing was readable he said that our minds were made up for team Roger.
Well, yeah, at that point, my mind was made up.
Bear, you missed and awesome ass meltdown there.
Links plz if possible?
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on October 03, 2013, 05:57:45 AM
Links plz if possible?
That's some dredging. You may also have to ask Faust since he runs the server at Eris Bar and Grille, or ask hirley0, who currently runs it. And well hirley0. Love the guy, but that's some cryptography sometimes and he may well have deleted the whole thing.
Long story short, EB&G is usually a curse, why it was eventually handed over to hirley0 who exists outside of time and space.
http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/
I sometimes forget that happened, that it was so epic, and the amazing outcome.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 03, 2013, 06:50:55 AM
I sometimes forget that happened, that it was so epic, and the amazing outcome.
Total. Friggin. Meltdown.
-
Okay, so let me try for the core of the argument: in a world of ubiquitous computing and networking, involuntary boredom and lostness are being eradicated. For a number of generations, they were definitive experiences for many (I'd even say most) kids. It is quite easy to see this change as an improvement, after all, being bored and being lost are usually not pleasant. But is it also justified (at least to some degree) to see it as a deprivation? Does having to learn to cope with involuntary boredom and lostness add a sort of resilience to personalities that is lost in a universe of instantly available, infinitely variable stimulation in unlimited quantities? I have this tentative feeling (which may be an artifact of my perspective or something a little more objective than that), that this change has a tendency to make people shallow, emotionally disengaged. Is it possible to have cathartic positive experiences without ever having cathartic negative ones?
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 12:09:25 PM
Okay, so let me try for the core of the argument: in a world of ubiquitous computing and networking, involuntary boredom and lostness are being eradicated. For a number of generations, they were definitive experiences for many (I'd even say most) kids. It is quite easy to see this change as an improvement, after all, being bored and being lost are usually not pleasant. But is it also justified (at least to some degree) to see it as a deprivation? Does having to learn to cope with involuntary boredom and lostness add a sort of resilience to personalities that is lost in a universe of instantly available, infinitely variable stimulation in unlimited quantities? I have this tentative feeling (which may be an artifact of my perspective or something a little more objective than that), that this change has a tendency to make people shallow, emotionally disengaged. Is it possible to have cathartic positive experiences without ever having cathartic negative ones?
Good point.
Combined with the decreasing number of parents that know how to say NO this leads to a generation that is incapable of tolerating frustration. You think the number of man-children around is bad now? hah! just you wait!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Our responsibility as the older generation to teach them to be able to use this technology unsupervised. If they don't it's our failure, as parents. It's basically the same as the time I got a bus pass from school and was given free rein, and didn't get into any trouble. My parents may have screwed up in some areas (whose doesn't?), but they at least taught me to not get myself in a bad spot if they weren't looking.
You are prefectly right. I guess my question is how to do that right with smartphones. It's quite clear that you wouldn't start teaching power-tools before good hand-to-eye coordination and concentration skills are in place, probably around 5-6, with constant supervision. Learning to drive a powered vehicle, also probably not before then. Smartphones (ubiquitous data and networking in any form) seems harmless by comparison. I am not sure it is. The effect may be more subtle than lost fingers and major injuries, but I think there is an effect, and I'd like to see more clearly what it is. By the way, this is coming from a guy whose three-year-old daughter is quite capable of navigating an iPhone and does so quite a lot, and whose older kids all have networked computers and two have smartphones and the rest could have them if they asked for them.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Holist, kudos. I understand your ambivalence, but this is a good thread.
Thanks for that!
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.
The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
I think, if told about people with nefarious purposes and the sorts of tactics they employ, 12-year-olds of reasonable intelligence are quite capable of looking out for themselves. And I think "trawling" is a ridiculously strong expression in this context: more like angling, maybe. In my 20-odd years on the internets (and I did hunt far and wide for the weirdness), I've come across maybe 2 sociopaths and half a dozen maybes. Read less sensational media shit, maybe.
As for your opinion, viz. "they don't need smartphones", the thing is, they beg to differ. And when I deny my fellows (let alone my own kids) something they expressly wish for when it is actually within my power to let them have that thing, I sure as hell like to have a good, solid reason. I mean better than OH NOES BECAUSE PAEDOS! Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.
Well, another reason, is that it is another form of recreational screen time. It's the same reason my daughter doesn't, and won't, have a TV in her room. Developmentally speaking, it is best for kids to limit their recreational screen time to two hours or less per day. Kids aren't super good at managing that on their own.
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 01:56:25 PM
Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.
The problem with that sort of thing is that there may be a perfectly good justificat¡on for not giving them what they want, but the reason may not be pleasant to explain, or have it explained to you.
For example, a real reason not to give them smartphones is that they are too much fun. That will move their inner hedonic threshold to a point where they find the usual bullshit kids have to do (endless arithmetic problems, boring reading of terrible books) are now intolerable.
But you can't tell them that. We can't even tell ourselves that, sometimes, which is why this argument is often expressed in a more nuanced, positive-sounding way. For example, by romanticizing boredom.
An apprpiate quote by George Orwell, who complained that political speech was too patronizing (get it? because patrionizing comes from the latin pater, which means father, lol).
Quote from: George OrwellIn our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 01:53:51 PM
Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.
The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.
A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 02:23:39 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 01:53:51 PM
Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.
The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.
A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime.
If you are into that sort of thing, I'm sure there must be some way for your children's phones to "report home" with some sort of
spyware parental supervision app.
I think the other issue you mentioned (time management) to be a valid concernm though. Is there an app for that?
Seriously, I could use one for myself. Maybe something that won't let me refresh news sites more than once an hour.
To a certain point, maybe. Parental restrictions are actually pretty good these days, which I'm pretty sure was expressed earlier in the thread, and if your kid is tech savvy enough to get around them, that's a whole different set of issues.
I further doubt many parents are capable of completely monitoring the internet usage of their children. Giving your children the skills to navigate the dangers themselves - which is what Holist is saying above - is far more useful. The internet is currently ubiquitous. Sooner or later, your kid IS going to run into nasty and negative elements of it. Preparing them to deal with that is tough, but when you're talking young teen, almost certainly necessary.
Kind of reminds me of this:
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-M4NZ5Tk/0/950x10000/i-M4NZ5Tk-950x10000.jpg)
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 02:23:39 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 01:53:51 PM
Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.
The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.
A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime.
If you are into that sort of thing, I'm sure there must be some way for your children's phones to "report home" with some sort of spyware parental supervision app.
I think the other issue you mentioned (time management) to be a valid concernm though. Is there an app for that?
Seriously, I could use one for myself. Maybe something that won't let me refresh news sites more than once an hour.
Maybe, I'd rather they just don't have the phone in the first place. When they get to be driving and working, and "need" a phone, then I would definitely have some mechanism for monitoring how they are using it.
... When your kid is old enough to drive you'll still be monitoring exactly where they are and what they are doing?
Jesus christ. :eek:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
Note how none of those pieces of advice include 'place a GPS monitoring device on your child's person'.
My parents always knew where I was. They sometimes called me up on my phone to check (which, in typical adolescent style, I found irritating). They never felt the need to bug me. I'd have freaked out if they did.
Who said anything about bugging them?
Crossed wires. When the 'report home' function was mentioned, I thought you were saying you'd be using one of the pieces of software which enables a parent to listen in on kid's phone calls and monitor their location. I can see an argument for that with very young kids, but by the time they're 16... yeah, no.
If that's not what you meant, sorry.
The only good argument against is that smartphones are fkn expensive.
LC mentioned a "report home" function, not me.
But I would monitor their usage of the smartphone, especially if I am paying for it.
Quote from: :regret: on October 04, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Combined with the decreasing number of parents that know how to say NO this leads to a generation that is incapable of tolerating frustration. You think the number of man-children around is bad now? hah! just you wait!
Actually, and it's a big actually, I think the problem cuts both ways.
In the 1st world, vanishingly small is the number parents who mostly (discounting occasional mistakes) say no to their children at the appropriate times, in the appropriate manner. This rather rare "best practice" has the following distinguishing characteristics:
1. The parent finds themselves in a position of having to say no on surprisingly infrequent occasions.
2. On most of those occasions, it is appropriate to provide an explanation of the 'no'. Sometimes the explanation is self-evident and doesn't need to be repeated. On even rarer occasions, it is not appropriate to provide an explanation. But in the case of kids trust in our judgement, wear resulting from overuse is quite severe.
3. The 'no' is practically always accepted without much hassle, except for a brief period around the age of three, which is best handled with humour.
On the other hand, a large percentage of parents say 'no' to their kids to often, and for no good reason. This, unsurprisingly, leads to protracted conflict and often ends in trench warfare. This is termed the "generation gap", although it is mostly just bad parenting.
And, especially among those who are so stressed to keep body and soul together that they have little time for their kids (but also quite frequently among those who could do better, which is by far more sinful, although it is usually just passing on the abuse they got when they were kids), a large number of parents never say no to their kids, which is deeply destructive.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 02:16:45 PM
Well, another reason, is that it is another form of recreational screen time. It's the same reason my daughter doesn't, and won't, have a TV in her room. Developmentally speaking, it is best for kids to limit their recreational screen time to two hours or less per day. Kids aren't super good at managing that on their own.
As far as I am concerned, you are an irredeemable moron. I'm through talking to you.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 01:56:25 PM
Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.
The problem with that sort of thing is that there may be a perfectly good justificat¡on for not giving them what they want, but the reason may not be pleasant to explain, or have it explained to you.
For example, a real reason not to give them smartphones is that they are too much fun. That will move their inner hedonic threshold to a point where they find the usual bullshit kids have to do (endless arithmetic problems, boring reading of terrible books) are now intolerable.
But you can't tell them that. We can't even tell ourselves that, sometimes, which is why this argument is often expressed in a more nuanced, positive-sounding way. For example, by romanticizing boredom.
I am not entirely sure if you are being earnest here or not. If not, then ha-ha, this is indeed an astute parody of one particular way of avoiding taking responsibility for yourself and your kids.
If you are serious, though, I put it to you that you are just plain wrong. "Inner hedonic threshold" indeed! It's not just a few little levers in there with labels on, you know. Teach kids to see reality - actually, they are instantiated with a pretty good angle on it and tremendous potential for development, so even better advice would be: don't actively dissuade your kids from learning to see reality - this will lead to correct assessment of self-interest and appropriate action. I see this in my own kids: once they discovered the dreaded internets (happens around the age of 12, with variations from chatting to friends and strangers to a great deal of collaborative online gaming in teams), school may suffer for a while (largely due to sleep-deprivation) - then they see the shit that gets them into and they adjust.
And nothing is ever too much fun. The addictive personality is formed, not born. A non-addictive personality generally does not slide into self-harming vortices of mal-adaptive self-regulation, whatever the stimulation. So there. :)
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
To a certain point, maybe. Parental restrictions are actually pretty good these days, which I'm pretty sure was expressed earlier in the thread, and if your kid is tech savvy enough to get around them, that's a whole different set of issues.
I further doubt many parents are capable of completely monitoring the internet usage of their children. Giving your children the skills to navigate the dangers themselves - which is what Holist is saying above - is far more useful. The internet is currently ubiquitous. Sooner or later, your kid IS going to run into nasty and negative elements of it. Preparing them to deal with that is tough, but when you're talking young teen, almost certainly necessary.
Kind of reminds me of this:
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-M4NZ5Tk/0/950x10000/i-M4NZ5Tk-950x10000.jpg)
I like what you say. And the cartoon has a precious tone of melancholy :)
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 04, 2013, 03:23:06 PM
The only good argument against is that smartphones are fkn expensive.
At least over here, not any more. Admittedly, they are not the smartest of smartphones, but run android reliably, with navigation, web, email, various chats - not the killer games, obviously, but that's what computers are for. Data plans are expensive. But there's a lot of wifi about.
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 04:01:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 01:56:25 PM
Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.
The problem with that sort of thing is that there may be a perfectly good justificat¡on for not giving them what they want, but the reason may not be pleasant to explain, or have it explained to you.
For example, a real reason not to give them smartphones is that they are too much fun. That will move their inner hedonic threshold to a point where they find the usual bullshit kids have to do (endless arithmetic problems, boring reading of terrible books) are now intolerable.
But you can't tell them that. We can't even tell ourselves that, sometimes, which is why this argument is often expressed in a more nuanced, positive-sounding way. For example, by romanticizing boredom.
I am not entirely sure if you are being earnest here or not. If not, then ha-ha, this is indeed an astute parody of one particular way of avoiding taking responsibility for yourself and your kids.
If you are serious, though, I put it to you that you are just plain wrong. "Inner hedonic threshold" indeed! It's not just a few little levers in there with labels on, you know. Teach kids to see reality - actually, they are instantiated with a pretty good angle on it and tremendous potential for development, so even better advice would be: don't actively dissuade your kids from learning to see reality - this will lead to correct assessment of self-interest and appropriate action. I see this in my own kids: once they discovered the dreaded internets (happens around the age of 12, with variations from chatting to friends and strangers to a great deal of collaborative online gaming in teams), school may suffer for a while (largely due to sleep-deprivation) - then they see the shit that gets them into and they adjust.
And nothing is ever too much fun. The addictive personality is formed, not born. A non-addictive personality generally does not slide into self-harming vortices of mal-adaptive self-regulation, whatever the stimulation. So there. :)
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
-
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: :regret: on October 04, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Combined with the decreasing number of parents that know how to say NO this leads to a generation that is incapable of tolerating frustration. You think the number of man-children around is bad now? hah! just you wait!
Actually, and it's a big actually, I think the problem cuts both ways.
In the 1st world, vanishingly small is the number parents who mostly (discounting occasional mistakes) say no to their children at the appropriate times, in the appropriate manner. This rather rare "best practice" has the following distinguishing characteristics:
1. The parent finds themselves in a position of having to say no on surprisingly infrequent occasions.
2. On most of those occasions, it is appropriate to provide an explanation of the 'no'. Sometimes the explanation is self-evident and doesn't need to be repeated. On even rarer occasions, it is not appropriate to provide an explanation. But in the case of kids trust in our judgement, wear resulting from overuse is quite severe.
3. The 'no' is practically always accepted without much hassle, except for a brief period around the age of three, which is best handled with humour.
On the other hand, a large percentage of parents say 'no' to their kids to often, and for no good reason. This, unsurprisingly, leads to protracted conflict and often ends in trench warfare. This is termed the "generation gap", although it is mostly just bad parenting.
And, especially among those who are so stressed to keep body and soul together that they have little time for their kids (but also quite frequently among those who could do better, which is by far more sinful, although it is usually just passing on the abuse they got when they were kids), a large number of parents never say no to their kids, which is deeply destructive.
Good point and i agree completely.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 04:41:13 PM
Congratulations, RWHN.
You have come up with a system that is even more restrictive than most boarding schools could offer.
Watch for explosions in late teens or so.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
But I would monitor their usage of the smartphone, especially if I am paying for it.
I think the message will be received, when that day comes.
-
-
Reminds me of my cousins. My aunt raised them extremely strictly, homeschooled them, hounded them about their behavior, and literally said that raising kids was no different than training dogs, and pretty much had them on house arrest for the first 15 years of their life.
One cousin has already run away from home several times, and has been to rehab twice, and the other self-harms and has attempted suicide at least once that we know of.
Anectdotal? Sure. But everyone saw it coming. Not that extremely at the time, but we knew something was going to blow.
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Our responsibility as the older generation to teach them to be able to use this technology unsupervised. If they don't it's our failure, as parents. It's basically the same as the time I got a bus pass from school and was given free rein, and didn't get into any trouble. My parents may have screwed up in some areas (whose doesn't?), but they at least taught me to not get myself in a bad spot if they weren't looking.
You are prefectly right. I guess my question is how to do that right with smartphones. It's quite clear that you wouldn't start teaching power-tools before good hand-to-eye coordination and concentration skills are in place, probably around 5-6, with constant supervision. Learning to drive a powered vehicle, also probably not before then. Smartphones (ubiquitous data and networking in any form) seems harmless by comparison. I am not sure it is. The effect may be more subtle than lost fingers and major injuries, but I think there is an effect, and I'd like to see more clearly what it is. By the way, this is coming from a guy whose three-year-old daughter is quite capable of navigating an iPhone and does so quite a lot, and whose older kids all have networked computers and two have smartphones and the rest could have them if they asked for them.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Holist, kudos. I understand your ambivalence, but this is a good thread.
Thanks for that!
Little story:
My youngest is 17. She and her friends all have smartphones, and they're constantly in touch. At night, they watch bad movies together...Each at their own house, laughing over a team chat channel. Then they all come up with things to do, and then I - or one of the other kids' parents - are overrun with teenagers for a while, then they're off to do whatever they had planned. In large groups, every member of which has communication capability.
In short, they're never alone, no matter what, unless they want to be.
Results? They're civilized as hell, can't be bothered with booze and drugs, and they DON'T spend all day buried in their phones.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.
Well, his approach is good training for CCA time.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.
I am so glad I am not the only one who read him that way.
He's clarified that isn't what he
meant to say though.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.
I am so glad I am not the only one who read him that way.
He's clarified that isn't what he meant to say though.
I read him that way too. Apparently, I accidentally primed myself with my own comment about spyware. It's a little scary, to be honest.
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
I remember my mom and dad wouldn't lock me down, or even punish me that much, but rather, when I would do something monstrously stupid, would be "extremely DISSAPOINTED" in me.
It was so effective, it took until my 30th birthday to get a tattoo.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 05:11:02 PM
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Our responsibility as the older generation to teach them to be able to use this technology unsupervised. If they don't it's our failure, as parents. It's basically the same as the time I got a bus pass from school and was given free rein, and didn't get into any trouble. My parents may have screwed up in some areas (whose doesn't?), but they at least taught me to not get myself in a bad spot if they weren't looking.
You are prefectly right. I guess my question is how to do that right with smartphones. It's quite clear that you wouldn't start teaching power-tools before good hand-to-eye coordination and concentration skills are in place, probably around 5-6, with constant supervision. Learning to drive a powered vehicle, also probably not before then. Smartphones (ubiquitous data and networking in any form) seems harmless by comparison. I am not sure it is. The effect may be more subtle than lost fingers and major injuries, but I think there is an effect, and I'd like to see more clearly what it is. By the way, this is coming from a guy whose three-year-old daughter is quite capable of navigating an iPhone and does so quite a lot, and whose older kids all have networked computers and two have smartphones and the rest could have them if they asked for them.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 03, 2013, 01:12:09 AM
Holist, kudos. I understand your ambivalence, but this is a good thread.
Thanks for that!
Little story:
My youngest is 17. She and her friends all have smartphones, and they're constantly in touch. At night, they watch bad movies together...Each at their own house, laughing over a team chat channel. Then they all come up with things to do, and then I - or one of the other kids' parents - are overrun with teenagers for a while, then they're off to do whatever they had planned. In large groups, every member of which has communication capability.
In short, they're never alone, no matter what, unless they want to be.
Results? They're civilized as hell, can't be bothered with booze and drugs, and they DON'T spend all day buried in their phones.
Same deal with mine. They're super-social, which is, of course, what human beings evolved to be.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 04, 2013, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm
When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.
I am so glad I am not the only one who read him that way.
He's clarified that isn't what he meant to say though.
I was mostly responding to this:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 02:38:35 PM
Maybe, I'd rather they just don't have the phone in the first place. When they get to be driving and working, and "need" a phone, then I would definitely have some mechanism for monitoring how they are using it.
By the time a kid is driving and working, the idea of Daddy monitoring their phone use is decidedly creepy and controlling.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
I remember my mom and dad wouldn't lock me down, or even punish me that much, but rather, when I would do something monstrously stupid, would be "extremely DISSAPOINTED" in me.
It was so effective, it took until my 30th birthday to get a tattoo.
My oldest daughter asked if she could get dahlia bites. I said "sure, babe, just look up on the internet how long they take to heal, what kind of care they need, and what the potential complications are, and make sure you're ready".
She didn't get them.
I've had parents ask me how I get my kids to do things I want them to do. The answer is, I ask them. They like me, they respect me, and I treat them with respect. When I ask them to do something, they do it. When I say no, they respect that. People have been trying to tell me I'm too nice for years and that I'll have a rebellion on my hands when they're teenagers. Bullshit. I'm not nice, and they're teenagers now and I'm not seeing rebellion.
What the hell is a dahlia bite?
I'm not sure i want to google that at work.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 05:11:02 PM
Little story:
My youngest is 17. She and her friends all have smartphones, and they're constantly in touch. At night, they watch bad movies together...Each at their own house, laughing over a team chat channel. Then they all come up with things to do, and then I - or one of the other kids' parents - are overrun with teenagers for a while, then they're off to do whatever they had planned. In large groups, every member of which has communication capability.
In short, they're never alone, no matter what, unless they want to be.
Results? They're civilized as hell, can't be bothered with booze and drugs, and they DON'T spend all day buried in their phones.
Well although my <i>oldest</i> is 18 in a few weeks, I can report pretty much the same scenario shaping up here. And we're half a world away and even tend to speak a completely different language most of the time... I think we can call that independent confirmation.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
I remember my mom and dad wouldn't lock me down, or even punish me that much, but rather, when I would do something monstrously stupid, would be "extremely DISSAPOINTED" in me.
It was so effective, it took until my 30th birthday to get a tattoo.
Well disappointment as a tool of control seems somehow deeply twisted to me as well... although it is not clear that this was happening in your case, LMNO. Why did you put "extremely DISAPPOINTED" in quotation marks?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:43:29 PM
What the hell is a dahlia bite?
I'm not sure i want to google that at work.
Piercings at the corners of the mouth.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
You know what's effective? When a new kid joins the group, he or she is met by 10-20 of the kids, all of whom have phones.
Holist returns, posts an interesting and engaging thread in which he himself posts clear well-thought opinions that make sense AND calls RWHN out for being a control freak?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm still asleep. :lulz:
BTW, welcome back Holist. Good thread!
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
I remember my mom and dad wouldn't lock me down, or even punish me that much, but rather, when I would do something monstrously stupid, would be "extremely DISSAPOINTED" in me.
It was so effective, it took until my 30th birthday to get a tattoo.
Well disappointment as a tool of control seems somehow deeply twisted to me as well... although it is not clear that this was happening in your case, LMNO. Why did you put "extremely DISAPPOINTED" in quotation marks?
Because it was, you know, a direct quote.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 04, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:43:29 PM
What the hell is a dahlia bite?
I'm not sure i want to google that at work.
Piercings at the corners of the mouth.
Oh. OK.
That's kind of dumb. An I'm only guessing, but it must make oral sex awkward. No matter what kind of genetalia you've got your mouth on.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Because it was, you know, a direct quote.
Alrighty, sorry. For some reason it didn't even occur to me.
The general point stands though (certainly did with my mum) - using disappointment (genuine as well as pretend) as means of control can do terrible damage to an emerging person. I think. Actually, I am pretty certain.
Really? I kind of like the way I turned out.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 04, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
Holist returns, posts an interesting and engaging thread in which he himself posts clear well-thought opinions that make sense AND calls RWHN out for being a control freak?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm still asleep. :lulz:
Well hello. I think I just got off on the wrong foot before. Need to build up a reputation before I attempt a critique of the scientific worldview... if at all.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:48:02 PM
Really? I kind of like the way I turned out.
The point I'm trying to make is that I misread you the first time. I'd wager your parents weren't using disappointment as a tool to control you: when you did something very stupid, they were, quite naturally, disappointed, and they told you about it. Not the same thing. I also like the way I turned out, but I'm afraid it was mostly
despite my dear old mum's efforts.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:48:02 PM
Really? I kind of like the way I turned out.
Yes, damaged like United Airlines Flight 232.
:lulz:
hey now, I happen to like my DC 10....
...Inch.
:ECH:
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 04, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
...AND calls RWHN out for being a control freak?
I must admit I've been lurking sporadically and it was already completely obvious. And a not very clever one at that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 04, 2013, 07:30:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 05:43:29 PM
What the hell is a dahlia bite?
I'm not sure i want to google that at work.
Piercings at the corners of the mouth.
No worse than snakebites or any of the others, really, though it's probably not the smartest thing to get. It's just the name that's creepy and evocative of the Black Dahlia morgue photos.
In a way, it's cool that kids found SOMETHING relatively harmless to freak older people out. I thought prior generations had used everything up. :lol:
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 04, 2013, 07:43:19 PM
Holist returns, posts an interesting and engaging thread in which he himself posts clear well-thought opinions that make sense AND calls RWHN out for being a control freak?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm still asleep. :lulz:
SHHHHHHH! Don't jinx it. :lulz:
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
Authoritarian parenting sucks anyway because the parent isn't modeling anything like respect or boundaries. I know some kids who will mindlessly destroy anything, of anyone's, for seemingly no reason, the minute nobody's looking. But I think the reason is their mom: "If your room isn't picked up in five minutes, all these toys are going IN THE TRASH". And she does it, and pats herself on the back for taking a hard line "parenting".
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
I agree wholeheartedly.
THE WORLD'S GONE MAD! :lulz:
Welcome back, Holist, good thread.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
Worked for me. Telling them about kiddie-touchers and making it clear that we have their back no matter what, and also encouraging them to form little online hoodlum gangs (always internet with a buddy, kids!) worked great. Appropriate parental involvement and facilitation of a large peer social group also makes it hard for pedos to groom kids, because the kids are getting plenty of attention and validation from healthy sources already.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
You know what's effective? When a new kid joins the group, he or she is met by 10-20 of the kids, all of whom have phones.
And this!
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Because it was, you know, a direct quote.
Alrighty, sorry. For some reason it didn't even occur to me.
The general point stands though (certainly did with my mum) - using disappointment (genuine as well as pretend) as means of control can do terrible damage to an emerging person. I think. Actually, I am pretty certain.
Perhaps you are thinking more of shame?
I dunno, telling my kids I'm disappointed but still love them and will help them fix their mistakes seems pretty effective.
Of course, I also use disappointment sparingly, for choices like lying to me about doing their homework, or shoving dirty dishes under their beds. I don't really have a whole lot to be disappointed in at this point though. Foster girl has given me a couple of really good reasons, and in both of those cases, my disappointment was all it took.
Quote from: stelz on October 04, 2013, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
Authoritarian parenting sucks anyway because the parent isn't modeling anything like respect or boundaries. I know some kids who will mindlessly destroy anything, of anyone's, for seemingly no reason, the minute nobody's looking. But I think the reason is their mom: "If your room isn't picked up in five minutes, all these toys are going IN THE TRASH". And she does it, and pats herself on the back for taking a hard line "parenting".
That's exactly it. You have to model respect if you want kids to LEARN respect. I am having a bit of a power struggle with surprise daughter's older brother over that right now. He has Ideas about how to raise kids, but they're based on control and punishment. Also he's a child himself, and one who was raised by completely incompetent parents. His ideas are so wrongheaded it's laughable.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: stelz on October 04, 2013, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 04, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
To put things in perspective, at age 17 (when its legal to learn to drive in the UK), I was backpacking in Peru. Admittedly, I'm likely an outlier. But some kids invariably will be.
The concept of raising kids to be able to function independently seems sadly to be on the decline. I see parents who either detach and leave their kids adrift to figure everything out on their own, or try to take an authoritative tack and attempt to control their child, which leads either to subservient and endlessly dependent young adults, or to power struggles, backlash, and estrangement. The parents who take the middle road and provide guidance, advice, respect, security, attachment, and trust, the parents who are authoritative without being authoritarian, are the ones who end up with the seemingly-remarkable in our times independent young adults who are actually functional and can make adult decisions and do adult things on their own.
Authoritarian parenting sucks anyway because the parent isn't modeling anything like respect or boundaries. I know some kids who will mindlessly destroy anything, of anyone's, for seemingly no reason, the minute nobody's looking. But I think the reason is their mom: "If your room isn't picked up in five minutes, all these toys are going IN THE TRASH". And she does it, and pats herself on the back for taking a hard line "parenting".
That's exactly it. You have to model respect if you want kids to LEARN respect. I am having a bit of a power struggle with surprise daughter's older brother over that right now. He has Ideas about how to raise kids, but they're based on control and punishment. Also he's a child himself, and one who was raised by completely incompetent parents. His ideas are so wrongheaded it's laughable.
You hit the nail on the head, there. My mother was very firmly in the "do as I say right now or else I'll beat the shit out of you" camp, and while it was "effective" then, our relationship is extremely strained now - almost to the point that I want nothing to do with her. In a household with no respect, kids often learn not to respect themselves, which is so incredibly shitty.
OT: I don't think there's anything wrong with kids having smartphones, really. It's a hell of a better option than searching around for a (now practically non-existent) payphone and hoping you have enough loose change to call your parents to let them know you're not dead. I understand the potential problems with social interactivity and distracted behaviour, but I would imagine that's an opportunity to teach your children how/when to properly use the phone, and when not to (in school, in work, etc).
Right this moment I'm sitting in a cafe/grocery store. It's filled with young people, 15? Around there. Most of them have phones out at varying intervals. Some of them have them out constantly.
And they're all acting like the highly social, chemical explosions that they are. They chattee, they laugh, they share, they take video and pictures just for the hell of it. They listen to music and share that too. They talk and talk and talk. One of them, sitting in a group of three, just called another one to see if they wanted to hang out.
So, you know, FUCK LOUIS CK.
A lot of older people seem to have a really hard time with anything that's new, I think because being against it is easier than figuring out how to deal with it. Also, older people seem to have a much more difficult time incorporating new concepts and technologies into their lives appropriately and with moderation, so I think they assume that kids who were raised with these concepts and technologies have the same troubles they do.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Because it was, you know, a direct quote.
Alrighty, sorry. For some reason it didn't even occur to me.
The general point stands though (certainly did with my mum) - using disappointment (genuine as well as pretend) as means of control can do terrible damage to an emerging person. I think. Actually, I am pretty certain.
Perhaps you are thinking more of shame?
I dunno, telling my kids I'm disappointed but still love them and will help them fix their mistakes seems pretty effective.
Of course, I also use disappointment sparingly, for choices like lying to me about doing their homework, or shoving dirty dishes under their beds. I don't really have a whole lot to be disappointed in at this point though. Foster girl has given me a couple of really good reasons, and in both of those cases, my disappointment was all it took.
Shaming, too. But in general, I think I'm thinking of emotional blackmail. "You've made mummy really sad!" Well, mummy, you are an adult, you should have robust emotional self-regulation in place, it's alright if you don't (granny and gramps weren't really on top of things when you were a kid, must have sucked), but if you make it look like it's my fault, there's a good chance I'm just going to end up maladjusted like you. And if you start early (before I learn to speak), there's also a good chance I'll have a really hard time figuring out what the fuck is wrong with me.
-
I have a couple of friends whose parents are only ever disappointed in them, and their self esteem and functioning adult skills are all shot to hell. It's pretty crushing to realize that your parents don't love you, have never loved you, that there is nothing you can do as their child that will make them love you or even satisfy them, and that even though they understand all this intellectually they still crave parental love. Obviously, I'm talking about child abuse here and not anything approaching parenting. Having "disappointed" be the most upset a parent gets is completely different than a parent whose default is disappointed and regularly gets more angry than that.
Incidentally, the most abused friend (adult) does have an iPhone. Her abusive, violent parents regularly try to call her and guilt her into interacting with them. She gets a PTSD response every time that happens. iOS doesn't expose the ability to block specific numbers as a setting; you need to root your phone to install a call-blocker app. (Android allows setting blocked numbers out of the box.)
Phone software to track children makes me nervous. If a child doesn't trust their parents to know where they are, there's a nonzero chance that the child is right and their parents are untrustworthy. Providing surveillance tech to random parents on the basis that parents are responsible people and children are always at fault is the same logic that lets you sell surveillance tech to dictators because heads of state are responsible and the average citizen is basically a criminal.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 06:13:35 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 04, 2013, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: holist on October 04, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Because it was, you know, a direct quote.
Alrighty, sorry. For some reason it didn't even occur to me.
The general point stands though (certainly did with my mum) - using disappointment (genuine as well as pretend) as means of control can do terrible damage to an emerging person. I think. Actually, I am pretty certain.
Perhaps you are thinking more of shame?
I dunno, telling my kids I'm disappointed but still love them and will help them fix their mistakes seems pretty effective.
Of course, I also use disappointment sparingly, for choices like lying to me about doing their homework, or shoving dirty dishes under their beds. I don't really have a whole lot to be disappointed in at this point though. Foster girl has given me a couple of really good reasons, and in both of those cases, my disappointment was all it took.
Shaming, too. But in general, I think I'm thinking of emotional blackmail. "You've made mummy really sad!" Well, mummy, you are an adult, you should have robust emotional self-regulation in place, it's alright if you don't (granny and gramps weren't really on top of things when you were a kid, must have sucked), but if you make it look like it's my fault, there's a good chance I'm just going to end up maladjusted like you. And if you start early (before I learn to speak), there's also a good chance I'll have a really hard time figuring out what the fuck is wrong with me.
Oh yeah, that's a whole different thing.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 05, 2013, 01:17:57 PM
I have a couple of friends whose parents are only ever disappointed in them, and their self esteem and functioning adult skills are all shot to hell. It's pretty crushing to realize that your parents don't love you, have never loved you, that there is nothing you can do as their child that will make them love you or even satisfy them, and that even though they understand all this intellectually they still crave parental love. Obviously, I'm talking about child abuse here and not anything approaching parenting. Having "disappointed" be the most upset a parent gets is completely different than a parent whose default is disappointed and regularly gets more angry than that.
Incidentally, the most abused friend (adult) does have an iPhone. Her abusive, violent parents regularly try to call her and guilt her into interacting with them. She gets a PTSD response every time that happens. iOS doesn't expose the ability to block specific numbers as a setting; you need to root your phone to install a call-blocker app. (Android allows setting blocked numbers out of the box.)
Phone software to track children makes me nervous. If a child doesn't trust their parents to know where they are, there's a nonzero chance that the child is right and their parents are untrustworthy. Providing surveillance tech to random parents on the basis that parents are responsible people and children are always at fault is the same logic that lets you sell surveillance tech to dictators because heads of state are responsible and the average citizen is basically a criminal.
Children are basically treated like possessions under the law.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
You know what's effective? When a new kid joins the group, he or she is met by 10-20 of the kids, all of whom have phones.
Nothing is more sad then seeing a bunch of kids in the same room talking to each other through screens instead of face to face. I'd rather my kid is part of a group where phones are put away and they partake in the fine art of playing games. Nonsense as Savation.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:42:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
You know what's effective? When a new kid joins the group, he or she is met by 10-20 of the kids, all of whom have phones.
Nothing is more sad then seeing a bunch of kids in the same room talking to each other through screens instead of face to face. I'd rather my kid is part of a group where phones are put away and they partake in the fine art of playing games. Nonsense as Savation.
Nothing is more sad than seeing a bunch of kids writing on paper, instead of inscribing things on clay tablets, in proper cuneaform.
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:42:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 04, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 04, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 04, 2013, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 02, 2013, 10:42:13 PM
Bad idea. It is another avenue for unsupervised and unmonitored access to the internet. Especially given all of the Agrippa's that use the internet.
ROCKS AND BROKEN GLASS. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED.
No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet. Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues. I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit. But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me. Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.
Wouldnt telling kids to not talk to pedos be more effective?
You know what's effective? When a new kid joins the group, he or she is met by 10-20 of the kids, all of whom have phones.
Nothing is more sad then seeing a bunch of kids in the same room talking to each other through screens instead of face to face. I'd rather my kid is part of a group where phones are put away and they partake in the fine art of playing games. Nonsense as Savation.
Nothing is more sad than seeing a bunch of kids writing on paper, instead of inscribing things on clay tablets, in proper cuneaform.
Nothing is more sad that seeing a bunch of kids inscribing things on clay tablets instead of painting on walls with shit, berries and blood.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing
right now.
Funny thing... I've seen bunches and bunches of kids, and all of them have phones, but I've never seen a bunch of kids in the same room talking to each other through screens instead of interacting face to face. This seems to be some kind of myth invented by old people as a strawman argument for why kids shouldn't have phones.
I've seen kids passing the time playing with their phones. When I was a kid I used to bring a book everywhere so I would never be bored, and my whole family were avid readers (as are my kids now) and we would often sit around in the living room immersed in our own books. How sad, that we spend the time reading instead of interacting with each other, right? How sad, that I never learned how to be bored, because I always had a book with me! This is really a good argument for why children should be kept illiterate, so they can learn how to cope with boredom and isolation properly.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing right now.
he's also ignoring the fact that young people will actively engage in a conversation using real meat space wordings about the things on their shiny screens.
But what do I know, I'm just forced to be around young people who were born after Gem and the Holograms and the Adventures of Don Coyote.
The only time I've seen kids in the same room using phones to talk/text each other is when there are more kids involved in the conversation who are not in the room.
Books are a vile technology that is turning people into introverts. Horrible, horrible.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 05, 2013, 05:54:53 PM
But what do I know, I'm just forced to be around young people who were born after Gem and the Holograms and the Adventures of Don Coyote.
:lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing right now.
Uh, you and I aren't IRL friends, not thr same thing. When I want to hang out and talk to an IRL friend or colleague, I go visit them and talk to them in person. I don't sit in thr same room and text them.
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Why on earth do we want to encourage that behavior with kids?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing right now.
Uh, you and I aren't IRL friends, not thr same thing. When I want to hang out and talk to an IRL friend or colleague, I go visit them and talk to them in person. I don't sit in thr same room and text them.
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Why on earth do we want to encourage that behavior with kids?
Because those kids are not anything nearly resembling you and I, culturally. They have to live and be able to function in the culture they live in, not spend their lives preparing for the 1980s.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing right now.
Electronic interaction with other people is not the same as teevee. I mean, unless you don't believe that the other people you're interacting with are really people. Pixels on a screen, maybe?
Kids don't tend to fall prey to that fallacy, either, because they grew up communicating with people online. You know what else is totally not weird or foreign to children? Making friends online, and then meeting them in person. I remember in 1989-90 when I went to my first BBS meetups, and people were just all ZOMG YOU ARE MEETING PEOPLE YOU HAVE ONLY EVER MET ON THE COMPUTER??? like it was crazy and dangerous and weird.
People don't feel that way anymore. People, and especially kids, don't see people who make words in the magic box as video-game characters, they see them as real flesh-and-blood people, because they are.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 05, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
You are missing the point. Remember all of that stuff we wrote about American Idol and TeeVee? People noy giving a fuck because they are firmly latched to the teat of brainless entertainment?
So you now want to encourage that?
You are confusing the medium with the message.
They are merely doing a more efficient version of what you and I are doing right now.
Electronic interaction with other people is not the same as teevee. I mean, unless you don't believe that the other people you're interacting with are really people. Pixels on a screen, maybe?
Kids don't tend to fall prey to that fallacy, either, because they grew up communicating with people online. You know what else is totally not weird or foreign to children? Making friends online, and then meeting them in person. I remember in 1989-90 when I went to my first BBS meetups, and people were just all ZOMG YOU ARE MEETING PEOPLE YOU HAVE ONLY EVER MET ON THE COMPUTER??? like it was crazy and dangerous and weird.
People don't feel that way anymore. People, and especially kids, don't see people who make words in the magic box as video-game characters, they see them as real flesh-and-blood people, because they are.
There was a major shift in the way people behave, just a few years ago. I view it as beneficial, for three reasons.
1. The kids can filter out information they don't want or need. Our generation could only do that by becoming Amish or some shit.
2. The kids are only alone when they want to be alone. My son and I chat now and again when he has free time on a field exercise in North Carolina. Kids in Afghanistan can talk with their families whenever they have a spare moment.
3. Their capabilities are huge. The US military has more or less given up on controlling smartphone use in Afghanistan, and the kids are using the smartphones for constant communication, GPS location for medivac pickup & artillery, and providing their commanders with real-time footage of events. And it's a fuckload harder to track than a AN/PRC77 radio.
The other side of the coin is, adults have trouble understanding how this dynamic (as opposed to the technology) functions, so their immediate response is to try to stop it.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
I am not socially isolated at all. I prefer face to face human interaction.
You are proving my point.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
Part of growing up is learning when to silence and turn off electronic devices. That's not really even a question, nor is it what the conversation is about.
Quote from: Every RWHN post ever on October 05, 2013, 06:16:57 PM
(http://www.qmix.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/grumpy-cat-nope.jpg)
No matter what the topic, all you need to know is that everyone else is wrong, and that RWHN's opinion is the one that is opposite of everyone else's.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
Part of growing up is learning when to silence and turn off electronic devices. That's not really even a question, nor is it what the conversation is about.
The tooic is whether or not kids should have smartphones. It is an example of why, I believe, it isn't necessarily a great option. It limits social interaction, encourages social blinders, and can also breed getting lost in the digital world at the expense of time in the real world.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:24:35 PM
No matter what the topic, all you need to know is that everyone else is wrong, and that RWHN's opinion is the one that is opposite of everyone else's.
Well he is someone that thinks it ok to compare PTSD with the horror of being forced to endure anything related to Hannah Montana.
I mean we should be respecting his feelings. Obviously he has some kind of PTSD about smartphones as well.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:24:35 PM
No matter what the topic, all you need to know is that everyone else is wrong, and that RWHN's opinion is the one that is opposite of everyone else's.
That's a simple-minded way of looking at it, which is easy to pass off when you are conversing on the internet. I suppose if we were face to face this is where you'd stick your fingers in your ears and say "not listening to you."
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
I am not socially isolated at all. I prefer face to face human interaction.
For someone who prefers face to face interaction, you spend an awful lot of time on a board where you are friends with exactly nobody. WTF is up with that? I spend very little time with people I am not friends with, unless I am tro...
Oh.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:26:08 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
Part of growing up is learning when to silence and turn off electronic devices. That's not really even a question, nor is it what the conversation is about.
The tooic is whether or not kids should have smartphones. It is an example of why, I believe, it isn't necessarily a great option. It limits social interaction, encourages social blinders, and can also breed getting lost in the digital world at the expense of time in the real world.
And, most critically, everyone who has observed the exact opposite of that is
wrong. Parents of teenagers included.
I honestly am not sure you even recognize what you're actually saying to other people, or how insulting it is, much of the time.
Totally disconnected from reality.
We got parents of children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got people who grew up before this shit was widespread and have to interact on a daily basis with the children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got the very same children doing shit in meat space.
Really all the weird outliers of people suffering for technology addictions are people of YOUR and my generations RWHN.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:24:35 PM
No matter what the topic, all you need to know is that everyone else is wrong, and that RWHN's opinion is the one that is opposite of everyone else's.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/38221097.jpg)
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 05, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
Totally disconnected from reality.
We got parents of children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got people who grew up before this shit was widespread and have to interact on a daily basis with the children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got the very same children doing shit in meat space.
Really all the weird outliers of people suffering for technology addictions are people of YOUR and my generations RWHN.
Well, what do people who have actually raised teenagers in the technology age know? We aren't policy-makers, we don't know what's best for us. We're just
the public, and we need people who can think clearly and tell us what's right, like RWHN.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
WE MUST ALL RETURN TO THE STONE AGE, EVERYTHING'S A DISTRACTION.
-
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:26:08 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
Part of growing up is learning when to silence and turn off electronic devices. That's not really even a question, nor is it what the conversation is about.
The tooic is whether or not kids should have smartphones. It is an example of why, I believe, it isn't necessarily a great option. It limits social interaction, encourages social blinders, and can also breed getting lost in the digital world at the expense of time in the real world.
Uh, so what are you basing that on? Personal observation, because I posted a personal observation that pretty much cancels your out. I saw kids being very social WITH their phones.
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
I say we ban all children from training courses first.
We had to destroy their education to save their education.
Quote from: Alty on October 05, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:26:08 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 05:58:51 PM
But also, smartphones are more often than not used as portable TeeVees or video games that happen to also be able to make phone calls.
Nonsense. In my experience with children, which is considerable, the preferred order of use is 1. to interact with friends, 2. to play games, and 3. to watch videos. Their innate preference is for more interactive over less interactive, but they will resort to less interactive options if the more interactive options are tapped out.
An aside; I am IRL friends with a number of people on this board. Your social isolation is not reflective of most people's experience, and you should refrain from projecting it onto them.
I also have considerable experience. In my former job I organized and facilitated two day trainings for peer mentors. There was a considerable difference in the level of interaction when phones were silenced and put away. Electronics becom distractions and limit the ability to really focus and listen, instead of just hearing.
This medium is very limiting to human communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, all VERY important in communication.
Part of growing up is learning when to silence and turn off electronic devices. That's not really even a question, nor is it what the conversation is about.
The tooic is whether or not kids should have smartphones. It is an example of why, I believe, it isn't necessarily a great option. It limits social interaction, encourages social blinders, and can also breed getting lost in the digital world at the expense of time in the real world.
Uh, so what are you basing that on? Personal observation, because I posted a personal observation that pretty much cancels your out. I saw kids being very social WITH their phones.
And so did TGGR, Nigel, and I, and the 4 of us have starkly similar observations.
Obviously we have an agenda to push, and RWHN is here to save the children from us.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 06:16:57 PM
You are proving my point.
And millions of teenagers and young adults are disproving it.
That's what bothers me about this topic. Why do we assume we understand the short term and long term effects of smartphone use? This shit is all anecdotal. There hasn't even been enough time to study it properly.
Conclusions, thinking, stoppinf, ballcake.
-
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:44:17 PM
I probably interact with more children on a daily basis than anyone else here.
Kids use their phones in a social manner overwhelmingly. Yes, you get some who sit in a corner, hood up, fiddling with the blasted thing from dawn to dusk, but most of them watch videos or read news and then talk about it, sharing the phone as a portable monitor and entertainment system for the whole group.
Or take tacky pictures of themselves to put on Facebook.
If this generation has an issue, it wont be introversion, it will be narcissism.
BAM.
I agree about the potential for narcissism, as well, that is a pretty high potential. But is it possible to maintain a sense of narcissistic uniqueness when everyone else around you is also convinced they are special?
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 05, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
Totally disconnected from reality.
We got parents of children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got people who grew up before this shit was widespread and have to interact on a daily basis with the children who grew up with the technology as it has expanded.
We got the very same children doing shit in meat space.
Really all the weird outliers of people suffering for technology addictions are people of YOUR and my generations RWHN.
Horseshit!
I respect people's varying opinions but, RWHN, how in the hell are you so certain over this?
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:44:17 PM
I probably interact with more children on a daily basis than anyone else here.
Kids use their phones in a social manner overwhelmingly. Yes, you get some who sit in a corner, hood up, fiddling with the blasted thing from dawn to dusk, but most of them watch videos or read news and then talk about it, sharing the phone as a portable monitor and entertainment system for the whole group.
Or take tacky pictures of themselves to put on Facebook.
If this generation has an issue, it wont be introversion, it will be narcissism.
That seems a lot more likely. All that immeidate social interaction without the buffer of waitinf around for a reposnse. Its all right there and then. It seems to me, maybe because I'm typing this on a phone, that maybe it increases social interaction across the board
Oh man, what the hell am I thinking. I typed that question in earnestness, somehow fogetting my own observations. Nevermind, carry on.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:47:40 PM
I agree about the potential for narcissism, as well, that is a pretty high potential. But is it possible to maintain a sense of narcissistic uniqueness when everyone else around you is also convinced they are special?
If even a small proportion of users is only talking and is not listening to what other people are saying to them - out of a population of <big number> that is still potentially going to be a significant number of special snowflakes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-your-cell-phone-hurts-your-relationships
Ok, that seems to indicate, in certain setting and conditions, a hampering of closeness between two people.
I don't see how that creates absolute certainty about this topic, especially in medium to large groups of young people.
We are talking about harm here, social and emotional harm. I'm not very convinced either way.
http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/tech-ed/should-students-use-their-smartphones-as-learning-tools/
http://mashable.com/2012/10/15/wireless-reach-students/
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Hesitant-Parents-Cant-Keep-Kids-Away-Smartphones/1010075
I'd normally bother to explain why I think these are relevant but apparently just shitting out some links is good enough now.
Quote from: Alty on October 05, 2013, 07:32:47 PM
Ok, that seems to indicate, in certain setting and conditions, a hampering of closeness between two people.
I don't see how that creates absolute certainty about this topic, especially in medium to large groups of young people.
We are talking about harm here, social and emotional harm. I'm not very convinced either way.
Why would it be any different with more kids?
-
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 07:35:36 PM
http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/tech-ed/should-students-use-their-smartphones-as-learning-tools/
http://mashable.com/2012/10/15/wireless-reach-students/
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Hesitant-Parents-Cant-Keep-Kids-Away-Smartphones/1010075
I'd normally bother to explain why I think these are relevant but apparently just shitting out some links is good enough now.
QuoteA steadfast one out of 10 parents of children ages 18 or younger said they would never feel comfortable with him or her having a smartphone.
Read more at http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Hesitant-Parents-Cant-Keep-Kids-Away-Smartphones/1010075#ZUKT9T7zhLzKHMb6.99
NEVER. :lol: That is AMAZING.
I DON'T LIKE THESE NEWFANGLED ELECTRIC LIGHTS. IT WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE OUR CHILDREN TO STAY UP LATE AND WE ALL KNOW THAT'S WHEN THE PEDOS STRIKE!
\
:lord:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on October 05, 2013, 07:32:47 PM
Ok, that seems to indicate, in certain setting and conditions, a hampering of closeness between two people.
I don't see how that creates absolute certainty about this topic, especially in medium to large groups of young people.
We are talking about harm here, social and emotional harm. I'm not very convinced either way.
Why would it be any different with more kids?
Because social dymanics differ between groups of two and groups of more than two.
And that doesn't address the steadfast certainty displayed, ITT. That study does not conclusively prove anything beyond a doubt. It indicates, suggests, leads one to narrow down possibilties.
Kids in larger groups, unfettered by close scrutiny do not act like two people in a study. If there is some kind of similarity or.parallels in their behavior, it's just that.
And, that study fails to consider the effect of smartphones on kids' brains over a long period of time. How will today's kids be affected by this in ten years? Twenty? Christ, these things have only been around for 10 years.
So, be certain. Be sure. That's not for me, I wait, I see.
Man, you often say this place doesn't talk about Discordia anymore.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in MY Discordia uncertainty comes first, and well ahead of anything else.
If you're not midly confused all the time you're doing it wrong, IMHO.
Sure, but another part of Discordia is Nonsense as Salvation, the art of playing games.
I don't think they had Angry Birds and Candy Crush in mind when they wrote that bit.
-
Anecdotal evidence BUT the only two people I know who play Angry Birds or any of those kind of games on a regular basis are my mother- and father-in-law. Disregarding that, what makes you any kind of authority on what are appropriate games for anyone to play? I mean evidently your idea of a good time is spend an inordinate amount of it "trolling" people who loathe you while acting as if you are above reproach. You have an inflated sense of your rightness of thought and action when it comes to mediating how others utilize their time. This brings to mind the great satanic scare in the 80s over the vile demon of Dungeons and Dragons brought about by people who didn't want to actually talk to their children about their hobbies, or the still current idea that anyone that plays any kind of game into their adulthood is an infantile mind living in a basement with poor hygiene and social skills. You are using the very noticeable outliers to prove that there is a problem that very likely does not exist.
I'm an absolute authority when it comes to MY opinion. And you are with yours. You, of course, are free to disagree with my opinion. My opinion is based on my observations. My job involves working with youth, I have two kids of my own, one who is on the verge of ten with lots of friends on the verge of ten. So I'm not exactly flying blind. I think there is some utility for technology in learning. My school distric has a program that provides iPads to Kindergartners, but they are pretty bare bones and not set up for unfettered use of the internet.
I know many parents give their kids smartphones, I also know many of these same parents who set up FB accounts for very young children, like my daughter's cousin who is only 9. I happen to think that is an exceptionally bad idea. What with the Loveshades and Agrippas out there.
My daughter asked me if she could have a YouTube channel and record and post videos. Nope, not gonna happen. She's asked for a TeeVee in her room, also a nope. I allow her to use my iPad but I monitor where she has been and what she has watched. Unfettered access to digital entertainment and the internet is a bad idea for young children. Many parenting experts will tell you internet usage should be monitored. Much like it is a good idea to always know where your kids are going IRL, it is also a good idea to know where they are in cyberspace. Otherwise you are inviting trouble.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-your-cell-phone-hurts-your-relationships
That's not particularly convincing, for a variety of reasons, including that the study was on adult strangers meeting for the first time and that no other controllable variables were tested, such as the presence of a third person, land line, computer, magazine, newspaper, or any other media.
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/30/3/237.full.pdf+html
A different question:
The kids already have the smartphones, so how do we intelligently and maturely cope with this new development in a way that doesn't result in estranged, frustrated parents and dismissive, alienated children?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 09:14:34 PM
Unfettered access to digital entertainment and the internet is a bad idea for young children. Many parenting experts will tell you internet usage should be monitored. Much like it is a good idea to always know where your kids are going IRL, it is also a good idea to know where they are in cyberspace. Otherwise you are inviting trouble.
Moving the goalposts, any? :lol:
C'mon, there is a reason that it is generally considered rude to be on your smartphone when you are, say, out on a date or hanging out with friends. Because it is a distraction, the person isn't completely present because part of their thoughts are focused on whatever texts, FB posts, etc they are monitoring on their phone. At a crucial time in development, when kids are still learning the importance of communication, smartphones will tend to be distractions.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 05, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
A different question:
The kids already have the smartphones, so how do we intelligently and maturely cope with this new development in a way that doesn't result in estranged, frustrated parents and dismissive, alienated children?
Ah, now here's the real question.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 09:40:27 PM
C'mon, there is a reason that it is generally considered rude to be on your smartphone when you are, say, out on a date or hanging out with friends. Because it is a distraction, the person isn't completely present because part of their thoughts are focused on whatever texts, FB posts, etc they are monitoring on their phone. At a crucial time in development, when kids are still learning the importance of communication, smartphones will tend to be distractions.
Teaching your children appropriate manners is part of basic parenting, regardless of what the technological landscape looks like.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:39:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 09:14:34 PM
Unfettered access to digital entertainment and the internet is a bad idea for young children. Many parenting experts will tell you internet usage should be monitored. Much like it is a good idea to always know where your kids are going IRL, it is also a good idea to know where they are in cyberspace. Otherwise you are inviting trouble.
Moving the goalposts, any? :lol:
Nope, the OP's age range starts at 10, which is still grade school age, ergo, young child. Obfuscation fail.
But you aren't arguing with the OP, you are arguing with people who have specified the ages at which they, personally, think kids are OK to have smartphones. Myself, as an individual, said that it depends on the child, and gave specific examples of what I meant. Alty, I believe, mentioned 15-year-olds.
So now you are trying to shift our stated opinions to fit your argument, which just doesn't work.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 09:40:27 PM
C'mon, there is a reason that it is generally considered rude to be on your smartphone when you are, say, out on a date or hanging out with friends. Because it is a distraction, the person isn't completely present because part of their thoughts are focused on whatever texts, FB posts, etc they are monitoring on their phone. At a crucial time in development, when kids are still learning the importance of communication, smartphones will tend to be distractions.
Teaching your children appropriate manners is part of basic parenting, regardless of what the technological landscape looks like.
Zing me Nigel zing me.
Oh my god, I'm arguing with RWHN again! How do I keep letting this happen? Never mind. :lol:
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on October 05, 2013, 09:47:00 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 05, 2013, 09:40:27 PM
C'mon, there is a reason that it is generally considered rude to be on your smartphone when you are, say, out on a date or hanging out with friends. Because it is a distraction, the person isn't completely present because part of their thoughts are focused on whatever texts, FB posts, etc they are monitoring on their phone. At a crucial time in development, when kids are still learning the importance of communication, smartphones will tend to be distractions.
Teaching your children appropriate manners is part of basic parenting, regardless of what the technological landscape looks like.
Zing me Nigel zing me.
:lulz:
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
Oh my god, I'm arguing with RWHN again! How do I keep letting this happen? Never mind. :lol:
He does seem to be a moderately effective troll. He's no Miley, of course, but who is?
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 09:50:46 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
Oh my god, I'm arguing with RWHN again! How do I keep letting this happen? Never mind. :lol:
He does seem to be a moderately effective troll. He's no Miley, of course, but who is?
Who the fuck would want to be? Another reason to not give kids smartphones. The might accidentally one of her awful songs.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 05, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
A different question:
The kids already have the smartphones, so how do we intelligently and maturely cope with this new development in a way that doesn't result in estranged, frustrated parents and dismissive, alienated children?
Ah, now here's the real question.
This technology has the potential to influence people towards acting like poopyheads, so we must restrict it.We need to find ways to reduce the potential for poopyhead behavior, and we must adapt to cope with poopyheads so that they have the least negative impact on society.
^ this is literally the conundrum of every single socially significant technological development since the fucking printing press
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 05, 2013, 09:53:54 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 05, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
A different question:
The kids already have the smartphones, so how do we intelligently and maturely cope with this new development in a way that doesn't result in estranged, frustrated parents and dismissive, alienated children?
Ah, now here's the real question.
This technology has the potential to influence people towards acting like poopyheads, so we must restrict it.
We need to find ways to reduce the potential for poopyhead behavior, and we must adapt to cope with poopyheads so that they have the least negative impact on society.
^ this is literally the conundrum of every single socially significant technological development since the fucking printing press
Yep. And the future is going to happen no matter how much we kick and scream and warn everyone about the danger, so the question becomes how we can make it the best future possible.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's
altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 05:06:34 PM
Children are basically treated like possessions under the law.
Yes. Despite the fact that
in theory, we've had this for quite a while:
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 05:55:55 PM
Books are a vile technology that is turning people into introverts. Horrible, horrible.
Books and me... we worked together and I did actually become a bit of an introvert for a good few years....
You are right, though, it wasn't the books' fault.
I think, on the other hand, it is also a valid question how the mental makeup of literates differ from illiterates, no? I heard, for instance, that illiterates on average have much better memory for a great deal of detail. I would imagine that they probably use all their senses in a somewhat different manner - I stand ready to be corrected, though! :)
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:32:18 PM
I honestly am not sure you even recognize what you're actually saying to other people, or how insulting it is, much of the time.
I repeat my estimation (based not only on this thread, actually): plain stupid.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:49:32 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 05:55:55 PM
Books are a vile technology that is turning people into introverts. Horrible, horrible.
Books and me... we worked together and I did actually become a bit of an introvert for a good few years....
You are right, though, it wasn't the books' fault.
I think, on the other hand, it is also a valid question how the mental makeup of literates differ from illiterates, no? I heard, for instance, that illiterates on average have much better memory for a great deal of detail. I would imagine that they probably use all their senses in a somewhat different manner - I stand ready to be corrected, though! :)
The flipside to that is, why should one expend the energy to rote memorize the increasingly more complex and detailed workings of particular subjects when all that needs to be memorized is how and where to acquire the particular knowledge that is needed when it is needed?
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
I say we ban all children from training courses first.
Just ban training courses, actually. (Definition of 'training course': hours of enforced boredom)
If those kids were there because they wanted to be, and if that trainer was worth his salt, they'd be forgetting their phones in a matter of seconds.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
I say we ban all children from training courses first.
Just ban training courses, actually. (Definition of 'training course': hours of enforced boredom)
If those kids were there because they wanted to be, and if that trainer was worth his salt, they'd be forgetting their phones in a matter of seconds.
I'm really liking the new holist.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 05, 2013, 08:16:42 PM
I DON'T LIKE THESE NEWFANGLED ELECTRIC LIGHTS. IT WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE OUR CHILDREN TO STAY UP LATE AND WE ALL KNOW THAT'S WHEN THE PEDOS STRIKE!
\
:lord:
:lulz:
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 05, 2013, 09:53:54 PM
This technology has the potential to influence people towards acting like poopyheads, so we must restrict it.
We need to find ways to reduce the potential for poopyhead behavior, and we must adapt to cope with poopyheads so that they have the least negative impact on society.
^ this is literally the conundrum of every single socially significant technological development since the fucking printing press
I applaud your acuity, sir. Thank you.
What's more, luckily, as technology advanced, it seems so did the global population's proportional capacity to sustain poopyheads... Which is great, actually. Net increase in slack?
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
I don't think that boredom was a common condition for children during the vast majority of our evolution. In fact, I think it's largely an invention of the nuclear family. When you look at most early societies you find tribalism, and with tribalism comes the kind of constant social interaction and feedback - basically, social immersion - that children spend so much time attempting to recreate using devices such computers, television, and video games. Fuck, just go to parts of the world where kids still live in tribal contexts, they're never alone or bored, they run in small swarms.
There are exactly zero old (pre-colonial) Coyote or We-Gyet stories in which children are bored. If it were as common a theme then as it has become in modern society, those are exactly the stories that would reflect it. There are shit-tons of stories about children are getting in trouble because of their curiosity and their social interactions, though. Coyote doesn't get bored. We-Gyet doesn't get bored. They do get lonely, though.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 06, 2013, 12:33:00 AM
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
I don't think that boredom was a common condition for children during the vast majority of our evolution. In fact, I think it's largely an invention of the nuclear family. When you look at most early societies you find tribalism, and with tribalism comes the kind of constant social interaction and feedback - basically, social immersion - that children spend so much time attempting to recreate using devices such computers, television, and video games. Fuck, just go to parts of the world where kids still live in tribal contexts, they're never alone or bored, they run in small swarms.
There are exactly zero old (pre-colonial) Coyote or We-Gyet stories in which children are bored. If it were as common a theme then as it has become in modern society, those are exactly the stories that would reflect it. There are shit-tons of stories about children are getting in trouble because of their curiosity and their social interactions, though. Coyote doesn't get bored. We-Gyet doesn't get bored. They do get lonely, though.
Boredom sucks. The only way things that suck can be considered virtuous is if that sucky thing encourages people to remove it from their existence. Boredom isn't interesting in any way.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
Interestingly, perhaps, I have observed my kids expressing relief at having a WHOLE DAY or a WHOLE AFTERNOON with nothing planned. They're just so so happy to have a stretch of unstructured time; they express a sense of freedom, of options.
However, I am aware that their attitudes are influenced by mine. They also love water with a gusto that I have only ever seen in myself (water is fucking delicious). That's why I tend to gauge my sense of normalcy from their friends, and from the kids I've worked with, because my kids may well be outliers.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:49:32 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 05:55:55 PM
Books are a vile technology that is turning people into introverts. Horrible, horrible.
Books and me... we worked together and I did actually become a bit of an introvert for a good few years....
You are right, though, it wasn't the books' fault.
I think, on the other hand, it is also a valid question how the mental makeup of literates differ from illiterates, no? I heard, for instance, that illiterates on average have much better memory for a great deal of detail. I would imagine that they probably use all their senses in a somewhat different manner - I stand ready to be corrected, though! :)
Yes, I am not sure that literacy is inherently a virtue. I love it, though, and I am very much an introvert, albeit a very sociable one.
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:55:30 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 05, 2013, 06:32:18 PM
I honestly am not sure you even recognize what you're actually saying to other people, or how insulting it is, much of the time.
I repeat my estimation (based not only on this thread, actually): plain stupid.
Sadly, I have reached a similar conclusion.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 06, 2013, 12:02:19 AM
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
I say we ban all children from training courses first.
Just ban training courses, actually. (Definition of 'training course': hours of enforced boredom)
If those kids were there because they wanted to be, and if that trainer was worth his salt, they'd be forgetting their phones in a matter of seconds.
I'm really liking the new holist.
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 06, 2013, 12:02:19 AM
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 05, 2013, 06:37:38 PM
But Nigel, surely the fact that smartphones can be a distraction when on a fucking training course means that kids shouldn't have them in any other context either.
My smartphone would potentially distract me in that context too, if I didn't turn it off and put it away. BRB smashing it with a hammer.
I say we ban all children from training courses first.
Just ban training courses, actually. (Definition of 'training course': hours of enforced boredom)
If those kids were there because they wanted to be, and if that trainer was worth his salt, they'd be forgetting their phones in a matter of seconds.
I'm really liking the new holist.
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Yeah, I like his approach this time around. Feel like I'm getting a chance to see the real person and he's an alright guy.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 06, 2013, 12:33:00 AM
I don't think that boredom was a common condition for children during the vast majority of our evolution. In fact, I think it's largely an invention of the nuclear family. When you look at most early societies you find tribalism, and with tribalism comes the kind of constant social interaction and feedback - basically, social immersion - that children spend so much time attempting to recreate using devices such computers, television, and video games. Fuck, just go to parts of the world where kids still live in tribal contexts, they're never alone or bored, they run in small swarms.
There are exactly zero old (pre-colonial) Coyote or We-Gyet stories in which children are bored. If it were as common a theme then as it has become in modern society, those are exactly the stories that would reflect it. There are shit-tons of stories about children are getting in trouble because of their curiosity and their social interactions, though. Coyote doesn't get bored. We-Gyet doesn't get bored. They do get lonely, though.
I failed to make myself entirely clear, sorry. I actually agree with you. Endemic boredom is a feature of western civilization. Excessive division of labour, massive hyerarchical structures, wide-spread, nonchalant abuses of power - boredom came piggyback with those. But so did intricate, recorded culture, much of what we today term art (not all, but tribal art is different - probably in the sense that it is not inspired by boredom and its lovely brother, frustration). I see (in the kids running around with networks in their pockets, soon in their heads, I reckon) a sort of new tribalism emerging. I view it as a Good Thing (a cause for reserved hope for humanity, really). But Change that gives always also taketh away, and I like to think about both sides.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 06, 2013, 12:39:37 AM
Boredom sucks. The only way things that suck can be considered virtuous is if that sucky thing encourages people to remove it from their existence. Boredom isn't interesting in any way.
Right, right. But in that particular way, I think it is interesting. We know how someone who has never been hungry deals with severe hunger (not too well). I wonder how someone who has never been bored (or lost) deals with severe boredom (or lostness). I imagine not too well.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 06, 2013, 12:41:14 AM
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
Interestingly, perhaps, I have observed my kids expressing relief at having a WHOLE DAY or a WHOLE AFTERNOON with nothing planned. They're just so so happy to have a stretch of unstructured time; they express a sense of freedom, of options.
However, I am aware that their attitudes are influenced by mine. They also love water with a gusto that I have only ever seen in myself (water is fucking delicious). That's why I tend to gauge my sense of normalcy from their friends, and from the kids I've worked with, because my kids may well be outliers.
I think your kids are outliers. Having a robustly sane mother is quite rare these days, I think. Which is quite probably why they don't get addicted to strong sources of stimulation.
I do travel on the train for an our each way twice a week. Actually, the number of people pecking at touchscreens all the way is quite large (20-30 percent of the travelling public), and all age-groups are represented. So the alienating, introverting effect is there - but the phones are just tools. Bloody amazing tools though! TV at your fingertips, whenever!
Roger, Nigel... you are both too kind!
:)
Quote from: holist on October 06, 2013, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 06, 2013, 12:41:14 AM
Quote from: holist on October 05, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 04, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.
If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.
I don't see how noting that boredom, once a near-universal experience, is today avoided altogether by technological means practically from birth (getting kids under a year old hooked on TV is easily accomplished), and then wondering what effect recurring experiences of boredom (or at least lack of readily available intellectual/emotional stimulation of practically any kind) had on personalities that were exposed to them and how personalities not so exposed may differ is romanticization.
As Eric Berne noted (several decades ago, actually), most people find unstructured free time one of the hardest things to deal with. But at least, back then, it only really became a problem after hours or even days. Today, it seems for many the amount of unstructured free time they can stand is a few minutes. I can't help but wonder whether that's altogether a good thing. I don't have a very definite opinion, so I asked.
Interestingly, perhaps, I have observed my kids expressing relief at having a WHOLE DAY or a WHOLE AFTERNOON with nothing planned. They're just so so happy to have a stretch of unstructured time; they express a sense of freedom, of options.
However, I am aware that their attitudes are influenced by mine. They also love water with a gusto that I have only ever seen in myself (water is fucking delicious). That's why I tend to gauge my sense of normalcy from their friends, and from the kids I've worked with, because my kids may well be outliers.
I think your kids are outliers. Having a robustly sane mother is quite rare these days, I think. Which is quite probably why they don't get addicted to strong sources of stimulation.
I do travel on the train for an our each way twice a week. Actually, the number of people pecking at touchscreens all the way is quite large (20-30 percent of the travelling public), and all age-groups are represented. So the alienating, introverting effect is there - but the phones are just tools. Bloody amazing tools though! TV at your fingertips, whenever!
The bolded is precisely part of my issue and, again partly, reticent to allow my young children to have a smartphone.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 06, 2013, 02:16:59 PM
The bolded is precisely part of my issue and, again partly, reticent to allow my young children to have a smartphone.
The thing that RWHN doesn't seem to understand is that the potential for stimulation addiction is not caused by smartphones (or books, or drugs, or rock'n'roll), it is caused by bad parenting. And the problem won't be solved by more bad parenting (unreasonable coercion). In fact, it will make the problem worse. Of course, nobody here talked about foisting smartphones on unsuspecting toddlers: but once kids ask for them, provided we can afford them, there seems little reason to deny them.
I still suspect that the boredomless kids will grow up into somewhat different adults: but over the course of this thread I have actually come to agree with Alty: fuck Louis CK. Even if the total lack of boredom/involuntary loneliness deteriorates the capacity for autonomy somewhat (which is doubtful), being mean to one's kids surely does more damage.
You don't understand, holist. The most important aspect of parenting is monitoring and controlling your children and making sure they don't get overexposed to the demon TEEVEE. Everything else just sort of takes care of itself.
Quote from: holist on October 06, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 06, 2013, 02:16:59 PM
The bolded is precisely part of my issue and, again partly, reticent to allow my young children to have a smartphone.
The thing that RWHN doesn't seem to understand is that the potential for stimulation addiction is not caused by smartphones (or books, or drugs, or rock'n'roll), it is caused by bad parenting. And the problem won't be solved by more bad parenting (unreasonable coercion). In fact, it will make the problem worse. Of course, nobody here talked about foisting smartphones on unsuspecting toddlers: but once kids ask for them, provided we can afford them, there seems little reason to deny them.
I still suspect that the boredomless kids will grow up into somewhat different adults: but over the course of this thread I have actually come to agree with Alty: fuck Louis CK. Even if the total lack of boredom/involuntary loneliness deteriorates the capacity for autonomy somewhat (which is doubtful), being mean to one's kids surely does more damage.
Not giving a kid every little possession they want =\= being a bad parent
This comes from a work friend, who had an epiphany today while driving over a bridge in Portland (ha). I have to agree, my kiddo @ 14 would be drowning in trying to manage the freshman homework workload if it weren't for google drive, etc.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n262/telarus/WOMPs%20and%20Memes/nickHardyEpiphany_cloudStorageWonkavision.jpg) (http://s114.photobucket.com/user/telarus/media/WOMPs%20and%20Memes/nickHardyEpiphany_cloudStorageWonkavision.jpg.html)
RWHN is indeed correct in claiming that...
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 06, 2013, 09:15:52 PM
Not giving a kid every little possession they want =\= being a bad parent
For example, should one of my kids ask for a
second smartphone (unlikely as that is), I would have no qualms whatsoever about denying them.
(Casting kids as pesky little wanting machines that need to be kept in place does equal bad parenting, in my book.)
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
Naw. If it was simple agreement, I'd still be acting like Goddamn Don Rickles. :lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 07, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
Naw. If it was simple agreement, I'd still be acting like Goddamn Don Rickles. :lulz:
Never said anything about simple! Question is, was it unsimple disagreement when you were acting like him?
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 07, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
Naw. If it was simple agreement, I'd still be acting like Goddamn Don Rickles. :lulz:
Never said anything about simple! Question is, was it unsimple disagreement when you were acting like him?
No, just being a dick. Believe it or not, despite the words of my biographers, I have been known to be less than socially gregarious.
Oh, fair enough :)
Quote from: Telarus on October 06, 2013, 09:22:16 PM
This comes from a work friend, who had an epiphany today while driving over a bridge in Portland (ha). I have to agree, my kiddo @ 14 would be drowning in trying to manage the freshman homework workload if it weren't for google drive, etc.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n262/telarus/WOMPs%20and%20Memes/nickHardyEpiphany_cloudStorageWonkavision.jpg) (http://s114.photobucket.com/user/telarus/media/WOMPs%20and%20Memes/nickHardyEpiphany_cloudStorageWonkavision.jpg.html)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
I didn't know when I started posting in this thread whether I agreed or disagreed.
PDers who get along well often disagree, and sometimes spectacularly. However, most of us try to avoid the perpetual nope, endless condescension in the face of citations that are provided, and refusing to hear what anyone else has to say thing.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 07, 2013, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
I didn't know when I started posting in this thread whether I agreed or disagreed.
PDers who get along well often disagree, and sometimes spectacularly. However, most of us try to avoid the perpetual nope, endless condescension in the face of citations that are provided, and refusing to hear what anyone else has to say thing.
I really have neither time nor the inclination to go into whether I did that last time around or not. So let's say that I did. :) I'll avoid it in future. M'kay?
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 07, 2013, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 06, 2013, 04:24:28 AM
I don't think he's the new Holist. I think he's the old Holist who wasn't surprised this time around by the bucket o' piranha poop that is PD.
Much more engaging fellow when he hasn't got half of creation lockjawed on his buttcheeks, I must say.
Having thought about this for a few days, I think the main difference is that we are discussing a topic we largely agree on (RWHN excepted) rather than one on which the majority of older PD denizens violently disagree with me.
I didn't know when I started posting in this thread whether I agreed or disagreed.
PDers who get along well often disagree, and sometimes spectacularly. However, most of us try to avoid the perpetual nope, endless condescension in the face of citations that are provided, and refusing to hear what anyone else has to say thing.
I really have neither time nor the inclination to go into whether I did that last time around or not. So let's say that I did. :) I'll avoid it in future. M'kay?
I am not saying you did or didn't. Reflecting more on the way people here respond to RWHN.
Okay.
I'd like to get back to the narcissism thing. I think it is a thing, but I don't think it is caused by the networking technology. Much in the same way that TV could be a great thing for most if it mostly had good programmes on, and was still a great thing (before the interwebs began maturing) for the few who could actually sift the good bits from the tons of spoil, but became harmful for the many because it was hijacked by the exclusive interest in profit, social media as it is (FB and Twitter in particular) are successful in hijacking the interactive networking infrastructure in the interest of profit while nonchalantly damaging users. The analogy seems quite deep: for those who can tell gold from shit, those behemoths, while having some annoying characteristics that require workarounds, can be useful tools for maintaining social networks. For those susceptible to mindlessness, they are addictive and harmful.
Incidentally, as the young members of the band I am in don't really dig email, I've tentatively become an FB user myself. There are number of rather ominous things on there (I mean the way the system works, rather than the content): but I only noticed a few days ago, while browsing a friend's wall, that FB doesn't actually show me everything that those I'm friends with post for their friends. How is that? What algorythm decides what I get to see and what I don't? (Because checking those about 80 people's walls individually is just not feasible.) Should I start a new topic for that? Is it old hat? What's the story?
-
Quote from: holist on October 07, 2013, 09:10:22 PM
Incidentally, as the young members of the band I am in don't really dig email, I've tentatively become an FB user myself. There are number of rather ominous things on there (I mean the way the system works, rather than the content): but I only noticed a few days ago, while browsing a friend's wall, that FB doesn't actually show me everything that those I'm friends with post for their friends. How is that? What algorythm decides what I get to see and what I don't? (Because checking those about 80 people's walls individually is just not feasible.) Should I start a new topic for that? Is it old hat? What's the story?
You can change the news feed to "All Friends" which will show all the posts. The "News Feed" or whatever they call it at the moment will show you things A) From people you interact with a lot B) That have gotten a lot of comments/likes and C) Magic. At least that's what I can tell from their methodology.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 07, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
You can change the news feed to "All Friends" which will show all the posts. The "News Feed" or whatever they call it at the moment will show you things A) From people you interact with a lot B) That have gotten a lot of comments/likes and C) Magic. At least that's what I can tell from their methodology.
Thanks very much. However, I am still lost. I tried searching for a solution: it is a clear indication of the narcissistic character of the whole FB thing that there's plenty of advice on how to tailor what others see of you, but I can't seem to find how to tailor what I see of others. So if you have the patience to give me more detailed instructions, please enlighten me.
Quote from: holist on October 08, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 07, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
You can change the news feed to "All Friends" which will show all the posts. The "News Feed" or whatever they call it at the moment will show you things A) From people you interact with a lot B) That have gotten a lot of comments/likes and C) Magic. At least that's what I can tell from their methodology.
Thanks very much. However, I am still lost. I tried searching for a solution: it is a clear indication of the narcissistic character of the whole FB thing that there's plenty of advice on how to tailor what others see of you, but I can't seem to find how to tailor what I see of others. So if you have the patience to give me more detailed instructions, please enlighten me.
I make lists for anyone that I really want to see all updates from. I don't seem to miss any that way.
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
Politeness isn't something most people can do by themselves. It's something I find I have to coax out of them using a mixture of violence and intimidation
Quote from: holist on October 08, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 07, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
You can change the news feed to "All Friends" which will show all the posts. The "News Feed" or whatever they call it at the moment will show you things A) From people you interact with a lot B) That have gotten a lot of comments/likes and C) Magic. At least that's what I can tell from their methodology.
Thanks very much. However, I am still lost. I tried searching for a solution: it is a clear indication of the narcissistic character of the whole FB thing that there's plenty of advice on how to tailor what others see of you, but I can't seem to find how to tailor what I see of others. So if you have the patience to give me more detailed instructions, please enlighten me.
You'll want to use the "close friends" list. Here's facebook's blogpost about it: https://www.facebook.com/blog/blog.php?post=10150278932602131
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 08, 2013, 02:59:12 PM
You'll want to use the "close friends" list. Here's facebook's blogpost about it: https://www.facebook.com/blog/blog.php?post=10150278932602131
Thanks, it's all clear now.
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
I find that kids, teenagers specifically, are much much more polite than my own generation. I started noticing this when I still worked in retail, when my kids were still just tots or not yet born.
My generation is ASSHOLES, seriously. Although not quite as big of assholes as Baby Boomers, they're the worst. Especially the male ones.
Generation Y is just bizarrely neurotic and self-absorbed, which I'm assuming must be some kind of side-effect of being raised by Boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens with their kids.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
I find that kids, teenagers specifically, are much much more polite than my own generation. I started noticing this when I still worked in retail, when my kids were still just tots or not yet born.
My generation is ASSHOLES, seriously. Although not quite as big of assholes as Baby Boomers, they're the worst. Especially the male ones.
Generation Y is just bizarrely neurotic and self-absorbed, which I'm assuming must be some kind of side-effect of being raised by Boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens with their kids.
We turned obsessively inward because we were told that This Is The Way The World Is (and definitely
not a bizarre combination of modern weirdnesses in a world that's changing faster than ever before in history, don't be ridiculous), and failure to bend, break, and mold our personalities to suit is moral negligence.
We were told that the world is immutable, and we must be the ones who yield to the demands of the world we were brought into.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 08, 2013, 08:12:00 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
I find that kids, teenagers specifically, are much much more polite than my own generation. I started noticing this when I still worked in retail, when my kids were still just tots or not yet born.
My generation is ASSHOLES, seriously. Although not quite as big of assholes as Baby Boomers, they're the worst. Especially the male ones.
Generation Y is just bizarrely neurotic and self-absorbed, which I'm assuming must be some kind of side-effect of being raised by Boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens with their kids.
We turned obsessively inward because we were told that This Is The Way The World Is (and definitely not a bizarre combination of modern weirdnesses in a world that's changing faster than ever before in history, don't be ridiculous), and failure to bend, break, and mold our personalities to suit is moral negligence.
We were told that the world is immutable, and we must be the ones who yield to the demands of the world we were brought into.
Unsurprising, given that you were raised by the Me generation. So basically, they felt like they had the power to mold the world... and once they molded it, you just have to put up with it because that's the way it is.
Luckily, they're going to die, and then you'll be in charge for a while. Do good.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:02:53 AM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 08, 2013, 08:12:00 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
I find that kids, teenagers specifically, are much much more polite than my own generation. I started noticing this when I still worked in retail, when my kids were still just tots or not yet born.
My generation is ASSHOLES, seriously. Although not quite as big of assholes as Baby Boomers, they're the worst. Especially the male ones.
Generation Y is just bizarrely neurotic and self-absorbed, which I'm assuming must be some kind of side-effect of being raised by Boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens with their kids.
We turned obsessively inward because we were told that This Is The Way The World Is (and definitely not a bizarre combination of modern weirdnesses in a world that's changing faster than ever before in history, don't be ridiculous), and failure to bend, break, and mold our personalities to suit is moral negligence.
We were told that the world is immutable, and we must be the ones who yield to the demands of the world we were brought into.
Unsurprising, given that you were raised by the Me generation. So basically, they felt like they had the power to mold the world... and once they molded it, you just have to put up with it because that's the way it is.
Luckily, they're going to die, and then you'll be in charge for a while. Do good.
I think we're a little too freaked out and scared to really knock shit over like we ought to, but I also think we're well on our way to preparing our own children for something much weirder than anyone expected.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 09, 2013, 03:20:01 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:02:53 AM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on October 08, 2013, 08:12:00 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Pere Ubu on October 08, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
Someone upthread pointed out how smartphone != Internet, though we should probably keep kids off the Intertubes lest they find their way here to PD and get irrevocably corrupted. :evil:
I do agree with bringing up the politeness aspect - I deal with ADULTS all day long who insist on burying their schnozz in a smartphone, which makes communicating with them problematic. But somehow politeness seems to be wanting in America as a whole lately, which is entirely another discussion.
I find that kids, teenagers specifically, are much much more polite than my own generation. I started noticing this when I still worked in retail, when my kids were still just tots or not yet born.
My generation is ASSHOLES, seriously. Although not quite as big of assholes as Baby Boomers, they're the worst. Especially the male ones.
Generation Y is just bizarrely neurotic and self-absorbed, which I'm assuming must be some kind of side-effect of being raised by Boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens with their kids.
We turned obsessively inward because we were told that This Is The Way The World Is (and definitely not a bizarre combination of modern weirdnesses in a world that's changing faster than ever before in history, don't be ridiculous), and failure to bend, break, and mold our personalities to suit is moral negligence.
We were told that the world is immutable, and we must be the ones who yield to the demands of the world we were brought into.
Unsurprising, given that you were raised by the Me generation. So basically, they felt like they had the power to mold the world... and once they molded it, you just have to put up with it because that's the way it is.
Luckily, they're going to die, and then you'll be in charge for a while. Do good.
I think we're a little too freaked out and scared to really knock shit over like we ought to, but I also think we're well on our way to preparing our own children for something much weirder than anyone expected.
I hope so.
Also, my generation is going to be in charge for a little while, starting anytime now, and we'll probably fuck some shit up but good.
I actually just spent a couple of minutes really thinking about that, and it freaked me out a little. When generation x is straddling 60 shit is probably going to get a little bit strange. That'll be roughly... 2031-ish.
All of a sudden I'm looking forward to this, a lot.
I've brought this over from the youtube thread:
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 21, 2013, 07:16:20 PM
Hahaha I love how old people project themselves into kids. That cell phone obsession thing is totally a technology immigrant thing, kids who are raised with cell phones aren't obsessed like that.
I don't think age is the definitive factor (though I am also sure it does play some role) - because I see fortysomethings, even a very few sixtysomethings perfectly able to integrate ubiquitous networks into their lives seamlessly and with gusto, while I see many kids whose lives are being wrecked by media addiction. I think the most important factor is addiction potential. Which has to do with parenting, in particular early parenting - but I don't mean the way the parent manages the relationship between kid and tech. A person raised right will not get addicted (permanently! temporary fascination is a healthy thing) to infinite stimulation at any age, a person raised wrong will easily do so, no matter what age they encounter it. This may actually have something to do with the age thing too: older people may be less able to avoid network addiction because more of them were raised in the restrictive, authoritarian and emotionally stunted manner that is the ideal culture medium for high addition potential.
Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:51:40 AM
I've brought this over from the youtube thread:
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 21, 2013, 07:16:20 PM
Hahaha I love how old people project themselves into kids. That cell phone obsession thing is totally a technology immigrant thing, kids who are raised with cell phones aren't obsessed like that.
I don't think age is the definitive factor (though I am also sure it does play some role) - because I see fortysomethings, even a very few sixtysomethings perfectly able to integrate ubiquitous networks into their lives seamlessly and with gusto, while I see many kids whose lives are being wrecked by media addiction. I think the most important factor is addiction potential. Which has to do with parenting, in particular early parenting - but I don't mean the way the parent manages the relationship between kid and tech. A person raised right will not get addicted (permanently! temporary fascination is a healthy thing) to infinite stimulation at any age, a person raised wrong will easily do so, no matter what age they encounter it. This may actually have something to do with the age thing too: older people may be less able to avoid network addiction because more of them were raised in the restrictive, authoritarian and emotionally stunted manner that is the ideal culture medium for high addition potential.
Good points, definitely.