This may be obvious or well-discussed but I had an epiphany some years back when my dad, regarding my kids, said (paraphrasing),
"they're not playing. 'Play' is a misleading term. They're testing the world. They're learning how things work. How gravity works. How friction holds lego together. How actions cause reactions. How friends and strangers behave when you do things. How to use language with make believe. How to comfortably and safely explore new ideas out loud with their action figures. How to discover what feels good and what doesn't. They're not playing. They're growing."
My kids are young. But I'm confident this is generally true for teenagers, too. One quick example: I played WoW and looking back... I learned a ton about how to work in a team. How to be social. What social behaviours work and don't work. How to deal with people you don't like. How to delay gratification. How to plan. And it was all in a low-stakes environment.
I wholeheartedly agree based on my own kids, but want to add a caution lest someone misunderstand: this testing, learning, and growing is of a kind that can only be done without adult supervision. It's not something that you can give them with a private lesson. It's not something that can be taught in a classroom. It's not something that can happen at all without adults letting the kids figure it out on their own by random trial and error.
Parents generally have a strong instinct to try to make things easier for their kids than they were for themselves growing up. We know the food is hot, so we blow on the kid's food or let it cool before giving it to them. We know the toy will break if it's repeatedly thrown down the stairs, so we impose a rule that "we don't do that in our house". We know X, Y, or Z, so we sit down with them and explain it to them.
I don't think that these explanations and rules have no place (I don't want a child learning what heat is by falling onto a wood-burning stove!), but we need to recognize that it's a strictly inferior way of learning something when compared to experience. And as you point out, unstructured play is where kids get that experience in a low-stakes environment.
Play serves a valuable purpose, but as soon as parents get involved to try to assist the purpose evaporates.
The way I explain this is, "my job is not to protect my kids from harm, it's to protect them from irreparable harm."
I've had this instinct whenever my kids are on the jungle gym to say, "slow down!" "That's too high!" etc. but I usually catch myself and think, "if they fall is it a cry or a hospital visit?"
I worked for a guy who designed playgrounds for kindergartens, schools and similar.
He stressed the importance of spontaneous, unstructured play. As you note it leads to important social development, it improves creativity and could lead to much better academic performance into the teens according to the studies he showed me.
When he designed a playground it wasn't "here they can do A and there they can do B", but he strived to provide spaces that facilitated spontaneous play. He wanted the kids to do their own thing, and provided as many options as possible. An important factor here is that kids enjoy different kinds of play. Not everyone wants to kick a ball, some want more social play so might need a space that allows for that, perhaps a secluded sitting group.
However as you note safety is a big issue. He had a guiding principle of two kinds of safety. There's subjective saftey, if you're high up you know falling might hurt. This is what kids should learn, and it's important they get to do that without permanent injury.
The second kind is objective safety, which relates to the environment and equipment, which facilitates this learning of subjective safety. There shouldn't be rocks near by equipment which could cause permanent injury if a kid fell of the equipment. There shouldn't be gaps in the swing attachment where a kid could lose a finger, and so on.
Of course we told (many times) our 3 yr old son not to put his hand on the stove.
And one day he just had to try it and feel what all these stories were about.
He started crying immediately.
We went to the hospital and came back rather quick. It wasn't so bad, just had to have a bandage for a couple of days.
Some weeks later he does it again. On purpuse.
!!??
I tell my brother and he answers:
"I kind of understand him. Sometimes I want to do it too."
Whenever this kind of opinion props up I wonder how far would you let your child to "fail"? Clearly we need our children to stumble and fail in a low-stake environment before they actually experience them later on in life. This naturally involves taking some risk. I remember being able to walk freely around the village pretty much without any supervision, I did get hurt a lot either from running into walls or getting scratches from sword play. The problem I see is that modern people have absolutely zero tolerance for "failure" in this regard. Clearly I could have been kidnapped, fallen into the river, fall from a tall tree, got run over by the cows or whatever. Let's face it, this comes with risk. But modern society can't seem to tolerate even a single dead children. Is that for the better? Maybe? But I think trying this has a long term cost. Trying to min/max risk taking and maintaining absolutely zero children suffer is just not going to work. We'll probably lose on both ends.
Note: I have no children nor do I plan to. Exactly because I have no idea how to deal with them nor do I want them to suffer being with me lol
> a theory in education which posits that individuals or learners do not acquire knowledge and understanding by passively perceiving it within a direct process of knowledge transmission, rather they construct new understandings and knowledge through experience and social discourse, integrating new information with what they already know (prior knowledge).
A bunch of the big One Laptop Per Child people were strong constructivists. It didnt seem super successful, but the OS really did a lot to build a more open sandbox for compute that kids could more directly be involved with, see & manipulate. I wish that effort had gone a bit better, had developed more compelling learning software & been given a shot at a much bigger scale, where more could have been learned/tried.
I disagree. It's best done with adult supervision, by adults who either at least allow play, if not are still playful themselves.
Yes teens do need some time without adults for a sliver of contexts, but the vast majority of learning is optimized when having the availability of at least 2 responsible adults who aid when called on but do not impose.
Lots of our ideas about teenagers, what kids can and cannot do etc are very recent and very contrary to history's proof that they absolutely can
I'm not a parent, but I can imagine how difficult it must be for some parents to be able to "let go" in this way sometimes and let kids be kids.
I think if I had kids my gut feeling would be to prevent harm and unpleasant experiences, because I wouldn't want to experience those things myself, much less those in my charge who may not be equipped to handle it as well. If I allow myself to be driven by that instinct however, they'll never be well equipped which does not make for a well rounded adult. It hurts to see immediate family hurting even in trivial capacities, but a parent must seemingly be able to endure that if the children are to come to be able to stand on their own.
I like this a lot. That is so true. Personal anecdote:
When I got my first car as a teenager (a cheap, used, beat-up sedan), I would often take it out to 'play', ehm, 'test the world'. I lived in a rural area and would drive random, remote backroads for hours with no maps (and no cell phones at the time). I would try to see if I could get lost. I never succeeded. I was always able to eventually find my way, while I was simultaneously building spatial awareness and a general sense of direction that accompanies me to this day. The winter time gave me the best 'testing' environment. I would drive these backroads when they were icey and very slick. When I had certainty there was no traffic anywhere near, I would see how I handled my car when I lost control. A few rotations later, after spinning uncontrollably, I was able to regain steering and was able to navigate out of the problem.
Risky? Sure. Useful skills? Yes. Would my parents have stressed out knowing what I was doing, definitely. I'd like to think I'm a much better driver today because of it and have gotten myself out of some potentially consequential accidents because of my awareness of how a vehicle handles when out of control.
Many people learn from doing - many kids especially. Being raised in proverbial padded rooms may mask very beneficial learning that corresponds to the real consequences of life that we will inevitably face in adulthood. There will always be risk by letting our kids loose a bit more, and thats probably the scariest of things for many parents..
If you keep your eyes open for it around (neurotypical) adolescents you’ll see that this is very true. Everything they do that they know is observed by others is an experiment. What happens if I say… what happens if I try… what happens if I wear…
They’re very keenly tuned in to social feedback, far more so than we may realize as adults.
IMO this is also why it’s so important as an adult to be very intentional and unambiguous when appropriate. Flat statements like “that’s rude” or “that was very kind” can be very powerful.
Also worth considering how online interactions change the game- they’re trying all the same gambits, but the kinds of feedback they get are very very different than in person.
> Flat statements like “that’s rude” or “that was very kind” can be very powerful.
Labels without understanding is kinda pointless. My friend's 5 year old has translated 'rude' to mean 'something I don't like'. Whenever he gets a timeout he calls his parents rude. It's actually pretty hilarious.
Brilliant comment.
We had a principal in our little community school who had exactly that attitude. He encouraged 'playing", and was often criticized for his efforts, by parents who didn't understand. Overall, however, the kids from that school were all eager learners, curious as to the world around them, socially very well integrated, and easily adapted to the rigors in high school and later.
Play, is under valued.
The parents have every reason for concern, not because there's something wrong with the principal but because there's something wrong with the society their children are entering.
The parents realize that their children will be screwed if they don't get into a good college, and the poorer parents need scholarships too! The principal's philosophical musings won't pay the bills.
I’m convinced the late 90s and early 00s was peak growing up years and it’s been going downhill ever since. One major factor in my reluctance to have kids is that there is zero possible way for me to offer a better experience for them compared to what I had.
I also played WoW and learned a lot. I was leading a guild and was a raid leader in a somewhat semi-competitive environment (we were competing with other guilds on our server for first kills). If you want to learn how to be a team leader in a highly competitive environment where people fail, things do not go as planned, and you need to improvise, where stress comes into play when you fail for the 27th time over the last 4 hours, then you can do it there for free. You learn how to make hard choices (you may need to replace a friend with another guildmate if they are holding the whole team back by failing game mechanics, etc.), how to lead a team, how people behave in stressful situations, how to keep the team together, and how to keep morale high, etc. So next time you see a kid playing WoW with others, don't underestimate the learning experience he will get there.
WoW is an interesting example. I’m sure there are lessons to be learned in any activity; it’s not like structured playtime is giving you zero information to update your world model.
I suppose the question is whether the “learning density” is high or low, and diverse, in video games. I spent a lot of time on single player games as a kid and am open to the idea that MMOs give you more learning (particularly social, of course), but I do wonder how they compare with, say, team sports or running around the woods with your friends.
That's usually on my mind, especially since my parents did a lot of "you're on X all the time" where X was at least a dozen different things throughout my teenage years.
The way I'm approaching it is simply: all things in moderation. Did you go outside today? Do a bit of tidying? Spend some time at the craft table? Go nuts with Super Mario after dinner. Did you wake up and play Mario for a few hours and get cranky when your brother asked you to play outside? Might be time to press the parental finger on the scale.
I'm even more bullish as to whether WoW counts as much more than team play with training wheels on.
When you screw up team play on the playground you can make enemies, rivals that will follow you through school for years to come, a reputation (for better or worse). You may have to look another kid in the eye and tell them, "No".
I don't doubt you can acquire some skills from online play, but if you think you're leveling up in self-esteem, social skills, I imagine that will get really put to the test when you find yourself alone at a party, or in an interview for a job.
Like flight simulators, they can be educational but I suspect it's a whole 'nother level of learning and experience when you could die if you screw up.
Of course. Kids aren't supposed to play instead of working just for the heck of it, there's a real purpose to it. I thought this understanding was part of upbringing and realising what it is you've been doing
Very true with rough and tumble play as well. Which i imagine is virtually non-existant for kids raised only by single mothers. And is extremely important for adolescent boy.s Basically it teaches limits - what hurts and what causes pain to others. And overall leads to much healthier social development. Jordan Peterson talks a lot about this https://youtu.be/Ay1KVzVXbjc
I think children of single mothers are over-represented in tech circles and likely on HN, which (alongside your poor grammar/capitalization and citing of a charlatan) is why you're being downvoted. The truth hurts, but it's true none-the-less. Boys raised by single mothers have terrible outcomes compared to full families, or even of single fathers. This is a sociological fact.
How on earth do you even get to the conclusion that rough and tumble play is off limit for kids of single mothers? Those kids are much more likely to go unsupervised for extended periods of times and are also more likely to learn life skills earlier as they support their mother.
We have really made it a point to have our kid play freely as much as possible and minimize scheduled activities (piano lessons etc.) the problem is that most of his friends are in a million classes so even if he’s free, they often aren’t.
That’s been the big challenge. So then there are these magical days where they all don’t have any activities and those invariably happen to be the days ALL kids look forward to. Cuz at the end of the day, they just want to play with their friends.
But that has taken planning in the past where we coordinate with parents for those free play days.
But those days are the exception. I wish they were the rule.
We’ve actually noticed how amazing his mood is after a day full of unorganized play hanging out with friends.
I came here to post exactly this. It is appalling that we live in a neighborhood where everyone can walk, there are plenty of kids that my son knows within a mile, he's 14 and more than old enough to be out on his own, but every one of his friends is in a math class, or French school, or out of town on vacation, constantly. He goes to the park and there is no one there. So he stays home and watches anime. The only way we can get him out is to call other parents and schedule something.
There is something deeply wrong here. I blame other parents who overschedule their kids.
I'm at the age where I'm seeing the endgame of this, our cohort of kids & friends are applying to college. They did all these after-school activities, tutors, sports, etc. They were over programmed over achievers. And guess what, even with their 4.5 GPAs and impressive resumes, they aren't getting into the colleges they want (University of California). So what was the point of all that?
Yes, this culture of parents scheduling play dates drives me insane. And even if you try to schedule, everyone is so busy. Kids have karate and 30 minutes later baseball and that's after school. It so much different from our childhood and we struggle to integrate into it.
As someone that was always surprised at how much more free time I had compared to other kids back in my school days - I'm still very much in support of limited structured activities. Me and the boys would just goof off on bikes and in backyards. This was 15-10 years ago.
I'd talk to people in class and they'd claim to have like 1 or two hours free between school and sleep. And I had something like 8 hours free. What the hell?
I used to think parents who overscheduled their kids were reacting to incentives put in place by college admissions offices and secondary selective admissions schools, and ultimately employers who demand elite credentials.
But as I've studied this issue and experienced life, it seems to be the case that credentials are in reality overrated compared to competence and experience. The vast majority of colleges will admit anyone, and the vast majority of employers requiring a degree just ask that you have a degree of any kind.
So now I think parents should just chill, not because it's the altruistic strategy in game theory, but because that's how the actual labor market works. Parents are killing themselves and their kids for no reason.
These classes kids go to aren’t always some kind of arduous, academic overachiever factory. My kid goes to a Spanish immersion after school program once a week and she loves it. She’s made a ton of friends there. We’re not shoving her through the door.
Don’t get me wrong, some parents do go over the top with it, no doubt. But a lot of these activities are genuinely enriching.
Given that the anime waifu crowd is a huge reason why AI image generation is moving as fast as it does, it's probably better for society that he becomes a weeaboo. It's thankless work but someone has to label all the images on the -booru websites for the good of humanity (unironically).
This makes it sound like the adult pains of holding friendships alive as you grow older. Everybody is busy with their lives and coordinating even with your closest friends leads to 'agenda conflicts' that push your time together weeks or months ahead. It's sad to see that this is happening to kids (who are often pushed into scheduled extracurriculars for better academic opportunities) too.
> (who are often pushed into scheduled extracurriculars for better academic opportunities) too.
Gotta say though, this seems to be purely a thing in the english speaking cultures. Apart from sport and maybe an instrument, extracurriculars aren't a thing in most european countries.
Extracurriculars are so peculiar that our ministry of education deems it necessary to make it a mandatory point for teachers to discuss when talking about american childrens typical day in school.
A good approach is for a social circle to block out social time. Saturday night, every other week or every third week seems to be the sweet spot where it's constant enough to make people not create recurring conflicts, but sparse enough that people can still make other weekend plans. Not everyone can make it every time, but between people inviting new people and a core group of regulars, you can keep it up in perpetuity.
Sure, but are you maximizing his college admissions chances via skills in carefully selected activities in order to stand out? (mostly joking, but this is how a lot of people approach scheduling these days)
haha I have been maximizing the annoyance level of my parents and others by telling my kids these things:
- don’t focus on GPA, focus on actually gaining knowledge and understanding how the world works. good grades are a measure of how you understand things. they should never be the goal. I was a C student and I am more curious about things than many of my peers with fancy degrees.
- forge your own path, there is always a thousand different paths out there. College is just one.
- no replacement for hard work. don’t expect anything in life. anything worth getting, you’ll have to compete with many others to get it so learn to be a good competitor.
- college should be approached with all the tradeoffs and as any other investment. We’ve told them we will not pay for their college. so they will have to make choices about getting the best bang for your buck. We’re the only parents in our whole social circle that aren’t saving for their college. it feels weird and isolating when that topic comes up.
- first think about the kind of life you want and then make choices to get you that life.
they’re already sick if my lectures. and they’re 10 and 5. :-)
When does little Johnny learn intrapersonal skills, conflict resolution skills, active listening skills, how to build and maintain friendship skills, or self-determination skills?
My sister and I have separate mothers. My mother, who I lived with, was pretty absent throughout my childhood. I never really had any monitoring on how I spent my time, for better or worse, but that reality allowed me to kind of chase interests (or ignore interests) and cultivate a lot of passion and curiosity. My sister's mother was the exact opposite. She prioritized "getting to be a mom" over my sister's time and enjoyment, so she became a Scout Leader, Soccer Coach, Ballet Coordinator, Cheer Coach etc. and had my sister join all of those activities. Every day was school from 7-whenever, straight to dance, straight to homework, straight to bed. I don't think my sister ever had more than an hour or two free for her entire childhood. The outcome is kind of wild. She's an anxiety mess, overly controlling, but also unable to really think for herself or prioritize her interests (maybe because she doesn't have a ton?), and usually just takes the path of least resistance or that she's been told to take. I feel sad for her, but I obviously was powerless to stop it.
Might be an issue with your social class? I know plenty of poorer parents whose children aren't filled with a myriad of activities because the family simply can afford to pay them, the kids simply act like kids.
Structured lessons and organized sports are not the problem, kids have been taking piano lessons and swim lessons and playing Little League baseball since forever. But it can't be exclusively that. They need unstructured free play as well.
That sucks. I used to ride the bus home after school, throw my backpack at my house, and run off to play with my buds until the sun started to go down. It was the most amazing part of my day, just being free to be a kid and DO WHATEVER. Sometimes we'd walk to the stream and pick up rocks to look for bugs and crawfish. Sometimes we'd play card games. Sometimes we'd go to the park and play "wall ball", which obviously included a painful peg to the back with a tennis ball if you failed whatever the goal of that game even was!
Anyways, point is, this fostered my interest in nature (looking for bugs), my sociability and strategy (card games), and my agility and teamwork (wall ball). This was stuff I worked hard at too, because they were my interests.
I’d hesitate to make any broad point with stuff like this. My daughter sounds like your son, she loves unstructured play. My son on the other hand is much happier with structured activities. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with either.
I wonder if this doesn't have a lot to do with cars.
In surrendering utterly to the preeminence of streets, we have essentially taken our open, free world and overlain it with an immense grid of electric fences -- thick lines all over the map that, if children wander across them, might easily lead to their deaths.
So "hold hands everywhere" and "don't let your children run free outside" become the norms. The only safe place is locked inside or behind fences; the wider world is a death trap for children.
Play inherently requires a degree of freedom, but children have none. We are just prison guards eternally transferring them from one captivity to another.
Routinely in New York City at least, you can kill someone using a motor vehicle almost with complete impunity.
The driver who led to Sammy's Law (which still hasn't passed) only received a 180 day license suspension a year and a half after the accident, even though he sped past a stopped vehicle on the righthand side (the vehicle had stopped for the child). Death by car is often considered acceptable.
There is really no disincentive to dangerous driving, to say nothing of the preeminence of driving more generally.
Which is absolutely wild to me. It is a great responsibility to wield a multi-ton machine in the proximity of other people. Driver's licenses are handed out quite freely and it seems the reason has less to do with competence than a complete failure of the economy as we know it if people couldn't bring themselves between the places that earn them money and the places they spend them, especially considering how far apart they are from each other in cities built after cars were brought into public awareness.
Absolutely, and America has double problem where denser neighborhoods are seen as unsafe due to crime. And less dense neighborhoods means kids can’t go anywhere without having an adult drive them.
Cars do make it worse, but probably aren't what it all stems from. As an example, I lived a 5 min walk away from the primary school I was attending and wasn't allowed to make the trip on my own for years. They gave me a payphone card and I had to call one of my parents to come and walk me back.
Helicopter parents don't let things like logic and convenience get in the way of taking every atom of independence from their kids. It may also have something to do with trust. Nobody trusts their kids with anything these days anymore and then they expect them to somehow grow up capable of taking responsibility? Like, how?
Is it paranoia? If it wasn’t for guns, cars would be the number killer of kids under 16. Note: This includes kids IN cars being ferried around from activity to activity.
Granted the numbers are lower now than before but that’s because of various safety and traffic calming efforts. Seems like we should push harder on that front, so parents can feel safe encouraging their kids to just pop over to their friends place on their own.
I would say that American car-centric development and distrust of others go hand in hand. The more people wall themselves away into their castles in the suburbs, the less they feel part of a community, and the more they distrust others.
Wow, this is so sad. I grew up in Europe in the 90s with parents who pretty much let me do whatever I wanted as long as I was a well-behaved child/teenager and getting reasonable school grades.
At 6 years old I was literally biking by the river or wandering in the woods with my friends after school for hours on end. Every day was an exciting adventure without any adult supervision, just random groups of 2-10 kids who would gather in the afternoon to play together. The rule was "home by dinner or there won't be any dinner for you". I never did any extracurricular activity, ever.
This did not prevent me from going to a great university in my country, get my master in Computer Engineering, graduating in the top 5% of my class, have a curriculum good enough to legally immigrate to the US, and working at several tech companies including FAANG, making high 6 figures now.
I would never give away those wonderful memories and early life experiences for some random extracurricular activity just to "stand out" later on, I do believe such freedom helped form my character to a much greater extent than any scripted activity would have.
I'll shout it from the rooftops: Down with helicopter parenting!
Independence, life skills, and fun stem from the freedom to explore on one's own. If anything parents, should be constantly nudging and encouraging kids to be more independent than is typically expected by:
1. Letting them have some unstructured, unsupervised time, especially out in the neighborhood.
2. Not automatically doing or thinking for them, especially by answering advice questions with questions that encourage reflection and independent decision-making.
3. Expect them to help with chores and needs self-service, pushing back against the expectation that parents are the forever barbers, waiters, and maids while the kids are on permanent vacation.
You're going to have to be somewhat careful or forward thinking to keep those same benefits for your kids going forward, I'm afraid. I made the opposite move and I see kids playing outside far more often here in Finland than I ever did in the States, and I grew up in a quite cozy little suburb.
In my darker moments I fear this may be one of those things where the tradeoffs between a high performance society and a take-it-easy culture just can't be squared. But then I remember that it's more likely downstream of other, more transient issues in American culture - the ever present fear of getting cancelled, the heavily bike-hostile ecosystem, etc. It's worth fighting to get back.
Younger children in Finland do play outside more than younger children in the USA do these days. However, the linked article is about teen mental health, and Finland has a pretty bad track record for that, too. Loads of Finnish teenagers are walled off indoors, with social media their main outlet.
> This did not prevent me from going to a great university in my country, get my master in Computer Engineering, have a curriculum good enough to immigrate to the US, and working at several tech companies including FAANG, making high 6 figures now.
The key question is more, could you do that today and would you sacrifice that to give your kids that childhood? Would your grades and lack of extracurriculars have earned you admission in this year's cohort? Is that path still really available?
I am 9 years out from the university admissions game, so still pretty young, but some time has passed. I would not be a competitive applicant today for many of the same programs I was admitted to back then.
High school was by far the most stressful time of my life and the fun part is, it would have had to have had more pressure to be where I am today.
> I would not be a competitive applicant today for many of the same programs I was admitted to back then.
Disclaimer: I live in the US but didn’t grow up here. I also grew up in the 90s.
In my experience, in higher education the prestige of the school has a smaller impact on learning than most people seem to think. Mostly, it seems to function as networking and a badge on your resume which can open the next door.
But once you have a bit of experience, more doors will open. In a few years, people care more about what you worked with than what school you went to, even if it’s an Ivy for instance.
Plus, working at smaller companies is a much faster way to learn than faang, imo. Sure, you get good at politics, perf reviews, and learn some best practices, but in terms of domain knowledge and practicing decision making, faang is terribly inefficient for “growth”. I wish I had worked more at smaller companies/freelancing, because frankly most of big corp was a waste of time (although money is good).
This is a really good point that people miss. Sure, the (insert birth year here) childhood seems really nice in retrospect, but many of the realities of life have changed, and someone growing up with that kind of childhood today will not necessarily have the same outcomes as back then.
We live in a society where a small mistake can ruin the rest of your life; where parents can be jailed for allowing previously common freedoms to children; where children are increasingly subject to age restrictions; where parents are under increasing threat of legal actions; surveillance is everywhere; and more.
Many of these things were done with the best intentions of protecting children. How much joy does one get out of keeping a toy sealed in a box, preserving it's "value"? How much more valuable would that toy be if one enjoyed it during their childhood? We're keeping our kids in the packaging to protect them, but we're losing the real value.
> Moreover, the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey revealed that during the previous year 18.8% of US high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a suicide plan, 8.9% attempted suicide one or more times, and 2.5% made a suicide attempt requiring medical treatment.
Wait a minute, what?
Nearly 1 in 10 attempted suicide? So in a middle school of say 400 kids a kid would know almost 40 peers that tried to kill themselves? I wasnt in middle school in 2019 but this just doesnt seem right. Maybe im misunderstanding.
Edit: it says high school not middle school, but point stands
2.5% of 400, or 10, made a suicide attempt requiring medical treatment. That doesn't mean the rest aren't in trouble and in need of help, but it's likely that in a previous decade we could have missed them.
Still, 10 out of 400 needing medical treatment for a suicide attempt, is awful, and seems much higher than when I was in high school.
It's not a "mental health crisis," it's schooling in general. The suicide rate among teenagers plummets when school goes out, or in the case of 2020, when a pandemic forces everyone to stay at home.
I would be curious at how far you have to go for “attempted”, especially when most supposed attempts did not require medical intervention (so it might consist of getting the materials and not having the final nerve to go through with it).
But having graduated high school in 2014, my anecdotal reaction based on that experience would be that it seems on the high side but is plausible.
As a parent of a young kid, I am rarely worried about him. He knows how to watch for traffic. He knows how to find his way home from a friends'. He knows enough about what is dangerous to do.
It's the police and CPS that I am afraid of. The ubiquity of smartphones has made tattling and "calling someone" so easy. And it's almost never from other parents! The parents are more worried about "what people will think" than they are their own kids actually being hurt!
Also, there are so many fewer kids in a neighborhood than when I was a kid (both from a declining birthrate - and also the monopoly older/kidless people have in suburban housing right now is very underreported) that there is less safety in numbers. There are only 2 other kids on our block.
Agreed. Also in NYC and while I do trust my kid with road safety I’ve witnessed so many drivers blowing through a red light, speeding, parking in the middle of a crosswalk and pulling all kinds of dangerous manoeuvers that the streets don’t actually feel particularly safe. There’s just zero enforcement out there.
Does anyone know of somewhere in America where it is common for children to play semi-unsupervised with lots of other children of different ages? I grew up in a super-block like setting and you could look out and see your kids play but most of the time you didn't and they'd form groups with kids of ages above and below theirs and work out some relatively fair way to play a game and have fun.
Usually sports, but sometimes something else. I actually really enjoyed this sort of setting. Kids would get hurt accidentally, there were some harmless fights, and that sort of thing.
I'm just concerned that, independent of my own viewpoint on the subject, I will be unable to find sufficient other parents with this approach, or, should I find them they'll be clustered with other beliefs that I think are suboptimal for success.
Ultimately, if there is a place with this culture then I will try to make it so I can reasonably live there.
Readit News
"they're not playing. 'Play' is a misleading term. They're testing the world. They're learning how things work. How gravity works. How friction holds lego together. How actions cause reactions. How friends and strangers behave when you do things. How to use language with make believe. How to comfortably and safely explore new ideas out loud with their action figures. How to discover what feels good and what doesn't. They're not playing. They're growing."
My kids are young. But I'm confident this is generally true for teenagers, too. One quick example: I played WoW and looking back... I learned a ton about how to work in a team. How to be social. What social behaviours work and don't work. How to deal with people you don't like. How to delay gratification. How to plan. And it was all in a low-stakes environment.
Parents generally have a strong instinct to try to make things easier for their kids than they were for themselves growing up. We know the food is hot, so we blow on the kid's food or let it cool before giving it to them. We know the toy will break if it's repeatedly thrown down the stairs, so we impose a rule that "we don't do that in our house". We know X, Y, or Z, so we sit down with them and explain it to them.
I don't think that these explanations and rules have no place (I don't want a child learning what heat is by falling onto a wood-burning stove!), but we need to recognize that it's a strictly inferior way of learning something when compared to experience. And as you point out, unstructured play is where kids get that experience in a low-stakes environment.
Play serves a valuable purpose, but as soon as parents get involved to try to assist the purpose evaporates.
I've had this instinct whenever my kids are on the jungle gym to say, "slow down!" "That's too high!" etc. but I usually catch myself and think, "if they fall is it a cry or a hospital visit?"
He stressed the importance of spontaneous, unstructured play. As you note it leads to important social development, it improves creativity and could lead to much better academic performance into the teens according to the studies he showed me.
When he designed a playground it wasn't "here they can do A and there they can do B", but he strived to provide spaces that facilitated spontaneous play. He wanted the kids to do their own thing, and provided as many options as possible. An important factor here is that kids enjoy different kinds of play. Not everyone wants to kick a ball, some want more social play so might need a space that allows for that, perhaps a secluded sitting group.
However as you note safety is a big issue. He had a guiding principle of two kinds of safety. There's subjective saftey, if you're high up you know falling might hurt. This is what kids should learn, and it's important they get to do that without permanent injury.
The second kind is objective safety, which relates to the environment and equipment, which facilitates this learning of subjective safety. There shouldn't be rocks near by equipment which could cause permanent injury if a kid fell of the equipment. There shouldn't be gaps in the swing attachment where a kid could lose a finger, and so on.
And one day he just had to try it and feel what all these stories were about. He started crying immediately. We went to the hospital and came back rather quick. It wasn't so bad, just had to have a bandage for a couple of days.
Some weeks later he does it again. On purpuse.
!!??
I tell my brother and he answers: "I kind of understand him. Sometimes I want to do it too."
Note: I have no children nor do I plan to. Exactly because I have no idea how to deal with them nor do I want them to suffer being with me lol
Famously, the Dusun in Borneo teach their children to respect knives by allowing them to play with them (and cut themselves) as toddlers.
For many parents, the toy is expensive enough that it warrants a rule (like the stove.)
> a theory in education which posits that individuals or learners do not acquire knowledge and understanding by passively perceiving it within a direct process of knowledge transmission, rather they construct new understandings and knowledge through experience and social discourse, integrating new information with what they already know (prior knowledge).
A bunch of the big One Laptop Per Child people were strong constructivists. It didnt seem super successful, but the OS really did a lot to build a more open sandbox for compute that kids could more directly be involved with, see & manipulate. I wish that effort had gone a bit better, had developed more compelling learning software & been given a shot at a much bigger scale, where more could have been learned/tried.
I disagree. It's best done with adult supervision, by adults who either at least allow play, if not are still playful themselves.
Yes teens do need some time without adults for a sliver of contexts, but the vast majority of learning is optimized when having the availability of at least 2 responsible adults who aid when called on but do not impose.
Lots of our ideas about teenagers, what kids can and cannot do etc are very recent and very contrary to history's proof that they absolutely can
I think if I had kids my gut feeling would be to prevent harm and unpleasant experiences, because I wouldn't want to experience those things myself, much less those in my charge who may not be equipped to handle it as well. If I allow myself to be driven by that instinct however, they'll never be well equipped which does not make for a well rounded adult. It hurts to see immediate family hurting even in trivial capacities, but a parent must seemingly be able to endure that if the children are to come to be able to stand on their own.
I like this a lot. That is so true. Personal anecdote:
When I got my first car as a teenager (a cheap, used, beat-up sedan), I would often take it out to 'play', ehm, 'test the world'. I lived in a rural area and would drive random, remote backroads for hours with no maps (and no cell phones at the time). I would try to see if I could get lost. I never succeeded. I was always able to eventually find my way, while I was simultaneously building spatial awareness and a general sense of direction that accompanies me to this day. The winter time gave me the best 'testing' environment. I would drive these backroads when they were icey and very slick. When I had certainty there was no traffic anywhere near, I would see how I handled my car when I lost control. A few rotations later, after spinning uncontrollably, I was able to regain steering and was able to navigate out of the problem.
Risky? Sure. Useful skills? Yes. Would my parents have stressed out knowing what I was doing, definitely. I'd like to think I'm a much better driver today because of it and have gotten myself out of some potentially consequential accidents because of my awareness of how a vehicle handles when out of control.
Many people learn from doing - many kids especially. Being raised in proverbial padded rooms may mask very beneficial learning that corresponds to the real consequences of life that we will inevitably face in adulthood. There will always be risk by letting our kids loose a bit more, and thats probably the scariest of things for many parents..
They’re very keenly tuned in to social feedback, far more so than we may realize as adults.
IMO this is also why it’s so important as an adult to be very intentional and unambiguous when appropriate. Flat statements like “that’s rude” or “that was very kind” can be very powerful.
Also worth considering how online interactions change the game- they’re trying all the same gambits, but the kinds of feedback they get are very very different than in person.
Labels without understanding is kinda pointless. My friend's 5 year old has translated 'rude' to mean 'something I don't like'. Whenever he gets a timeout he calls his parents rude. It's actually pretty hilarious.
The parents realize that their children will be screwed if they don't get into a good college, and the poorer parents need scholarships too! The principal's philosophical musings won't pay the bills.
In psychology, the rest of your post is what "play" means. It's basically anything done as practice, or with low stakes, or without other purpose.
I suppose the question is whether the “learning density” is high or low, and diverse, in video games. I spent a lot of time on single player games as a kid and am open to the idea that MMOs give you more learning (particularly social, of course), but I do wonder how they compare with, say, team sports or running around the woods with your friends.
The way I'm approaching it is simply: all things in moderation. Did you go outside today? Do a bit of tidying? Spend some time at the craft table? Go nuts with Super Mario after dinner. Did you wake up and play Mario for a few hours and get cranky when your brother asked you to play outside? Might be time to press the parental finger on the scale.
When you screw up team play on the playground you can make enemies, rivals that will follow you through school for years to come, a reputation (for better or worse). You may have to look another kid in the eye and tell them, "No".
I don't doubt you can acquire some skills from online play, but if you think you're leveling up in self-esteem, social skills, I imagine that will get really put to the test when you find yourself alone at a party, or in an interview for a job.
Like flight simulators, they can be educational but I suspect it's a whole 'nother level of learning and experience when you could die if you screw up.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
That’s been the big challenge. So then there are these magical days where they all don’t have any activities and those invariably happen to be the days ALL kids look forward to. Cuz at the end of the day, they just want to play with their friends.
But that has taken planning in the past where we coordinate with parents for those free play days.
But those days are the exception. I wish they were the rule.
We’ve actually noticed how amazing his mood is after a day full of unorganized play hanging out with friends.
There is something deeply wrong here. I blame other parents who overschedule their kids.
I'd talk to people in class and they'd claim to have like 1 or two hours free between school and sleep. And I had something like 8 hours free. What the hell?
But as I've studied this issue and experienced life, it seems to be the case that credentials are in reality overrated compared to competence and experience. The vast majority of colleges will admit anyone, and the vast majority of employers requiring a degree just ask that you have a degree of any kind.
So now I think parents should just chill, not because it's the altruistic strategy in game theory, but because that's how the actual labor market works. Parents are killing themselves and their kids for no reason.
Ah, the mantra of our parental lives!
These classes kids go to aren’t always some kind of arduous, academic overachiever factory. My kid goes to a Spanish immersion after school program once a week and she loves it. She’s made a ton of friends there. We’re not shoving her through the door.
Don’t get me wrong, some parents do go over the top with it, no doubt. But a lot of these activities are genuinely enriching.
Deleted Comment
Why don't you move to an area that's not like that, or you go an play with your kid at the park until other kids show up.
or build an app that makes the makes scheduling the play time very seamless.
Gotta say though, this seems to be purely a thing in the english speaking cultures. Apart from sport and maybe an instrument, extracurriculars aren't a thing in most european countries.
Extracurriculars are so peculiar that our ministry of education deems it necessary to make it a mandatory point for teachers to discuss when talking about american childrens typical day in school.
Bring back the pop-in!
- don’t focus on GPA, focus on actually gaining knowledge and understanding how the world works. good grades are a measure of how you understand things. they should never be the goal. I was a C student and I am more curious about things than many of my peers with fancy degrees.
- forge your own path, there is always a thousand different paths out there. College is just one.
- no replacement for hard work. don’t expect anything in life. anything worth getting, you’ll have to compete with many others to get it so learn to be a good competitor.
- college should be approached with all the tradeoffs and as any other investment. We’ve told them we will not pay for their college. so they will have to make choices about getting the best bang for your buck. We’re the only parents in our whole social circle that aren’t saving for their college. it feels weird and isolating when that topic comes up.
- first think about the kind of life you want and then make choices to get you that life.
they’re already sick if my lectures. and they’re 10 and 5. :-)
Full scheduling of random stuff doesn't mean it would always help the children. It's the children's version of appearing busy.
Anyways, point is, this fostered my interest in nature (looking for bugs), my sociability and strategy (card games), and my agility and teamwork (wall ball). This was stuff I worked hard at too, because they were my interests.
Dead Comment
In surrendering utterly to the preeminence of streets, we have essentially taken our open, free world and overlain it with an immense grid of electric fences -- thick lines all over the map that, if children wander across them, might easily lead to their deaths.
So "hold hands everywhere" and "don't let your children run free outside" become the norms. The only safe place is locked inside or behind fences; the wider world is a death trap for children.
Play inherently requires a degree of freedom, but children have none. We are just prison guards eternally transferring them from one captivity to another.
The driver who led to Sammy's Law (which still hasn't passed) only received a 180 day license suspension a year and a half after the accident, even though he sped past a stopped vehicle on the righthand side (the vehicle had stopped for the child). Death by car is often considered acceptable.
There is really no disincentive to dangerous driving, to say nothing of the preeminence of driving more generally.
this is a great example of where whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. i mean what is your solution? ban all driving?
sure, but give me a proper public transport network that can supply the suburbs and rural areas. fix urban cost of living while you're at it.
Neighborhood != community. Imo with: - Lack of interesting nearby spaces - poor walking options (unsafe, unpopulated, unshaded) - poor transit options - growing options online - polarization
Families are less likely to spend leisure or errand time in/near their neighborhoods. And kids suffer for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alonehttps://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes
So kids are stuck at home, miles from a playmate.
Helicopter parents don't let things like logic and convenience get in the way of taking every atom of independence from their kids. It may also have something to do with trust. Nobody trusts their kids with anything these days anymore and then they expect them to somehow grow up capable of taking responsibility? Like, how?
Granted the numbers are lower now than before but that’s because of various safety and traffic calming efforts. Seems like we should push harder on that front, so parents can feel safe encouraging their kids to just pop over to their friends place on their own.
At 6 years old I was literally biking by the river or wandering in the woods with my friends after school for hours on end. Every day was an exciting adventure without any adult supervision, just random groups of 2-10 kids who would gather in the afternoon to play together. The rule was "home by dinner or there won't be any dinner for you". I never did any extracurricular activity, ever.
This did not prevent me from going to a great university in my country, get my master in Computer Engineering, graduating in the top 5% of my class, have a curriculum good enough to legally immigrate to the US, and working at several tech companies including FAANG, making high 6 figures now.
I would never give away those wonderful memories and early life experiences for some random extracurricular activity just to "stand out" later on, I do believe such freedom helped form my character to a much greater extent than any scripted activity would have.
Independence, life skills, and fun stem from the freedom to explore on one's own. If anything parents, should be constantly nudging and encouraging kids to be more independent than is typically expected by:
1. Letting them have some unstructured, unsupervised time, especially out in the neighborhood.
2. Not automatically doing or thinking for them, especially by answering advice questions with questions that encourage reflection and independent decision-making.
3. Expect them to help with chores and needs self-service, pushing back against the expectation that parents are the forever barbers, waiters, and maids while the kids are on permanent vacation.
In my darker moments I fear this may be one of those things where the tradeoffs between a high performance society and a take-it-easy culture just can't be squared. But then I remember that it's more likely downstream of other, more transient issues in American culture - the ever present fear of getting cancelled, the heavily bike-hostile ecosystem, etc. It's worth fighting to get back.
The key question is more, could you do that today and would you sacrifice that to give your kids that childhood? Would your grades and lack of extracurriculars have earned you admission in this year's cohort? Is that path still really available?
I am 9 years out from the university admissions game, so still pretty young, but some time has passed. I would not be a competitive applicant today for many of the same programs I was admitted to back then.
High school was by far the most stressful time of my life and the fun part is, it would have had to have had more pressure to be where I am today.
Disclaimer: I live in the US but didn’t grow up here. I also grew up in the 90s.
In my experience, in higher education the prestige of the school has a smaller impact on learning than most people seem to think. Mostly, it seems to function as networking and a badge on your resume which can open the next door.
But once you have a bit of experience, more doors will open. In a few years, people care more about what you worked with than what school you went to, even if it’s an Ivy for instance.
Plus, working at smaller companies is a much faster way to learn than faang, imo. Sure, you get good at politics, perf reviews, and learn some best practices, but in terms of domain knowledge and practicing decision making, faang is terribly inefficient for “growth”. I wish I had worked more at smaller companies/freelancing, because frankly most of big corp was a waste of time (although money is good).
I love this article with the comparison across generations.
I grew up in Europe in the '80s, and was riding streetcars and taking subways when I was 10.
We live in a society where a small mistake can ruin the rest of your life; where parents can be jailed for allowing previously common freedoms to children; where children are increasingly subject to age restrictions; where parents are under increasing threat of legal actions; surveillance is everywhere; and more.
Many of these things were done with the best intentions of protecting children. How much joy does one get out of keeping a toy sealed in a box, preserving it's "value"? How much more valuable would that toy be if one enjoyed it during their childhood? We're keeping our kids in the packaging to protect them, but we're losing the real value.
Wait a minute, what?
Nearly 1 in 10 attempted suicide? So in a middle school of say 400 kids a kid would know almost 40 peers that tried to kill themselves? I wasnt in middle school in 2019 but this just doesnt seem right. Maybe im misunderstanding.
Edit: it says high school not middle school, but point stands
This is horrifying. These kids are going to become adults who will, to some extent, struggle to have successful, satisfying and rewarding lives.
Still, 10 out of 400 needing medical treatment for a suicide attempt, is awful, and seems much higher than when I was in high school.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/07/19/teen-su...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/childrens-risk-of...
https://pages.uoregon.edu/bchansen/Back_To_School_Blues.pdf
Deleted Comment
But having graduated high school in 2014, my anecdotal reaction based on that experience would be that it seems on the high side but is plausible.
My reaction certainly isn’t “no way.”
It's the police and CPS that I am afraid of. The ubiquity of smartphones has made tattling and "calling someone" so easy. And it's almost never from other parents! The parents are more worried about "what people will think" than they are their own kids actually being hurt!
Also, there are so many fewer kids in a neighborhood than when I was a kid (both from a declining birthrate - and also the monopoly older/kidless people have in suburban housing right now is very underreported) that there is less safety in numbers. There are only 2 other kids on our block.
Usually sports, but sometimes something else. I actually really enjoyed this sort of setting. Kids would get hurt accidentally, there were some harmless fights, and that sort of thing.
I'm just concerned that, independent of my own viewpoint on the subject, I will be unable to find sufficient other parents with this approach, or, should I find them they'll be clustered with other beliefs that I think are suboptimal for success.
Ultimately, if there is a place with this culture then I will try to make it so I can reasonably live there.