I feel the destructive behaviour of bored kids is forgotten a bit.
Growing up in the late 70s early 80s we were kicked out of the house until dinner.
We did a lot of really dangerous things exploring.
Among these,
-Playing in storm drains. Inside the narrow tunnels I might add.
-Abandoned construction sites.
-Railway tracks. Putting things o the rails waiting for the train to see what happened. Everything from rocks to toys to coins.
-Dumpster diving in large dumpsters. There was a soap factory near us and wed dive for schampoo or hairgel.
-Jumping in the biohazard pond looking for frogs eggs.
-Throwing things off bridges.
-Climbing various constructions, houses and dubios trees.
-Competing in who could jump from the highest roof.
Kids not only could get hurt. We did. Legs were broken.
No one died fortunately.
Bored kids outside is not really as romantic as many would have it.
Not arguing against boredom, constant stimuli is not healthy.
That being said, unsupervised bored kids can lead to some very dangerous outcomes.
Yet over these experiences you socialized, bonded, explored, got scared, risked and got away with it, promised not to tell parents, had general fun and discovered things you would have not otherwise. Any of these beats becoming a rotbrain in front of YouTube kids for hours.
We’re also looking at strong survivor bias. My grandfather played in the fields after WW2 (Eastern Europe) and had friends who died or had limbs blown off by undetonated mines from the war (preschool/school age). You likely never heard their stories since they didn’t make it to present day.
There are definitely many benefits to socialization outside, but let’s not forget the tradeoffs. Mental health can be repaired (I.e. ozempic for the mind?), permanent injuries - much less so.
(I picked an extreme example to prove a point, I’m not suggesting the risks of playing outside today are equivalent. But the risks are real nonetheless)
> Any of these beats becoming a rotbrain in front of YouTube kids for hours.
Technically, the jury is still out on this. I don't think anyone's done any kind of study of how childhood YouTube brainrot affects their long term outlook during adulthood, simply because YouTube brainrot is too new. For what it's worth, if I had to bet money, I'd agree with you that "socialized, bonded, explored, etc." is better than YouTube, but I don't think this has been proven yet. It's just a gut feeling.
I used to chase kites barefoot as a kid in India. I swear there was a time when I detected, while running with my eyes towards the sky, that I am stepping over a large piece of broken glass, like a fragment of a bottle of Coke, and I instinctively twisted my ankle so that instead of putting pressure on it, my foot and the bottle would just roll sideways. I just regained my posture, stepped hard to the side, unscathed, and continued running after the kite. There was not even a scratch on my foot. I still think about that incident. Maybe it was because I was so thin and lightweight that I managed to escape uninjured? What if it went horribly wrong and resulted in permanent nerve damage?
IMHO, a lot of these analyses suffer from survivorship bias; the ones who died don't get to tell you it was a bad idea.
I would argue that what you were doing was actually good though because you were going maximum risk in an environment that was definitely dangerous but not to the level of adult life. When you got hurt it informed your learning brain and you likely adjusted your risk taking going forward. I see this skill missing a lot in the kids that grew up in the 2000's and later vs the early millenials/gen x. It's way better to learn your risk limits in an environment where the probability of permanent harm or death still exists but is actually a lot lower than doing adult things like driving a car. The way I usually describe this is a lot of the younger people I talk to weren't punched in the face enough by their peers growing up because that's the other social risk side of this equation.
> The way I usually describe this is a lot of the younger people I talk to weren't punched in the face enough by their peers growing up because that's the other social risk side of this equation.
Boys will be boys, we all did these things back then and the extreme vast majority of us survived, I'll take that over 10 hours of screens per day from age 3
My IT school changed since I was there. Talking to my old director he told me about the power of the environment. The premise is that we had a smaller school before, and it was not optimally planned, (student's cables running around, trash not exactly at disposal nearby, etc...)
It seems obvious there is a direct link between environment and behavior, but what he started doing was like "programming the environment" in order to trigger behavior changes.
Why would we litter if the trashcan is nearby ? Why would we go out of our way with cables if power-socket is on every table ?
The same way I wonder if we cannot "program" the environment for kids, in a way that allows us to let them get bored out, but in such a situation that is not dangerous but also productively interesting for the kids.
It is not the same to get bored out outside nearby a train track or in the industrial area, than in a somewhat controlled area ?
What do we want to expose them to ? We already know it might want to try crazy stuff ; but I guess we can reduce the danger factors and increase area for more interesting activities ? Also, this is all linked to age and I'm not sure we can make generic rules.
Growing up in a farm is much different than growing up in the streets, and ultimately, my parents and I think a lot of parents, decide to live where kids are safe to grow with somewhat nice activities and people around them.
(Note that I also met a couple that completely cut themselves from the world and they really had to come back to society when the kid came to age, just because a kid requires social interactions with people it's age)
Some of those things are terrible and dangerous to others. But parents need to be so much more measured in their responses.
Yes, you find out your kid was throwing stuff off bridges or being a vile bully, you come down like a pile of bricks.
But that doesn’t mean a full safety-rail environment. That means kids will jump off high places and break into others and we slap them on the wrist and carry on. That means lots of broken bones and the very occasional tragedy. Because a whole generation prone to mental illness and incapable of autonomy is infinitely worse. I think we’ve learned that by now.
It’s part of life. Helicoptering your kids is as bad as letting them run around after midnight with “the wrong types”. There’s a middle ground. We have swung too far into safety. It’s fine to push your kid to find a hobby or interest but a kid with half hour to half hour schedule every day is going to be miserable. They aren’t small adults. I’ve seen too many young adults with low self esteem, overthinking and afraid to socialize, waiting on texts or emails for hours or days for an answer instead of knowing their value and just calling after giving a reasonable response time; or simple saying “well f that, I’ll call somebody else”
This is literally my childhood / teenage years, and I was born in the 90s.
Seems like everything changed when our dopamine systems were highjacked by handheld screens.
Started to see the first glimpses of this, everyone crowding around my IPod in shop class to watch a crazy Aphex Twin music video I put on it, or even watching a movie on the Ipod, hooked up to my car speakers with my gf sitting in the school parking lot
Reminds me of finding a portapotty and using it to tumble down a hill, or visiting the local quarry when I was 8 and playing around near huge deep pools of strangely coloured liquids. Mid 80s were like the wild wild west.
Most of the things you describe are part of a good childhood and learning boundaries and limits, and testing yourself, and growing harder, and having fun.
Sorry, but we had been living like that for ages before helicopter parents became the norm. Kids didn't die in the streets by the truckload, or jump off of roofs to their doom any any number to statistically matter, as this alarmist comment implies.
Compare that to the sheltered, all-wishes-granted and no minute spent w/o distractions like social media, kids. Started with Gen Z who get all angsty, with panic attacks, when they have to start performing, i.e., during final exams and the like. And never learned to deal with emotions and free-floating thoughts, handling themself, keeping calm.
(all observed from multiple coworkers being parents, some had to bring their offspring to psychiatric therapy - of course, driven, as taking public transport on their own would be too much!)
Due to our normal childhood, we could handle situations later in life where today's offspring inevitably fails.
- The parent who grew up in the <more rugged years> self-identify as a tough rugrat who had fun and was fearless; not a wuzz like those modern kids (“kids” here excludes their own)
- But the parent would rather that their kids be safe than to have to pain themselves worrying about them constantly
> When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
I wonder what the equivalent is for knowing how to be the perfect parent until becoming one yourself.
You can learn to take good risks and handle hardship without taking stupid unnecessary risks. One important life lesson is that the only risks worth taking are those that offer corresponding upside - else the expected outcome is ruin. Education wise this means you give them necessary or low-impact risks to take - and let them endure outcomes such as failing a difficult but important project, failing to find love, losing a basketball match, or losing friendships. Of course, sometimes you may need to do something even if there is no upside for yourself directly, but that is outside the scope of this topic.
I think the problem you're describing is not due to distractions and social media.
I think the fault there is that school has changed, kids aren't taught to be allowed to make mistakes. If you're not taught that failure is part of learning, then you're just teaching kids to build anxiety because they are not allowed to fail.
I often think that a lot of people are depressed and/or in a burn out because they don't give themselves a moment to do nothing. A moment were the brain can get up to speed with all the bombardments of information.
In the past we had moments we were bored. Now, we always have a phone or other screen were we can indulge on dopamine.
Dopamine isn’t something you indulge in. It certainly isn’t the pleasure itself.
The more appropriate common vernacular is “instant gratification” IMO. (And interestingly dopamine is associated with expectations of things like pleasure. But if you pull out your phone immediately when nothing is happening then there is a very small window for expectation to happen.)
While I was younger and before the social networks I often looked puzzled when someone told me he/she is bored. How could that be? Usually there are much more to do or to think about than the time we got. I had to utilize all I got including sitting on the toilet or falling (trying) asleep at night. I may be mistaken but the maniac way of feeling ourselves good when we go out together may be a related matter. The having a schedule 20:00-24:00 or later Saturday night when you WILL feel good because it is the time for feeling good! Not only good but very good! Party pooping is not allowed! Quiet conversation or just being together quietly sounds more genuine most of the times. But all depends on the mood. Spinning around on the head may occur of course if the mood allows. But rarely on fixed schedule.
It is about the same now but I genuenly have much more to do, miss the times of doing nothing. Whenever I have to travel that is the time of reflection. Instead of pushing my nose into the mobile I stare outside or try to observe others without being creepy. It is easier nowadays, 90% of travellers use mobile. They don't know what happens around them. Luckily this mobile and tablet revolution passed me by, likely because of my occupation. I have all day at the computer I can use 30-60 min away, it is not enough actually.
This is absolutely true, though perhaps hard to understand just put simply like this. Sitting in silence is not the solution, but it will cause a solution to occur within you.
Sitting quiety will make you self-reflect. Self reflection will reduce stress and fear. Reduction of stress and less fear is a reduction in problems caused by human error, and negativity towards eachother (due to fear).
People will say things like this, and then miss how many people immediately become uncomfortable with sitting quietly lest they face the risk of self-reflection, and how many social tools for avoiding it we have.
Nitpicky, because I get what you mean, but "self reflection will reduce stress and fear" is by no means always true and I'd argue it's probably not really true for most people in practice. Epictetus said (paraphrasing!) that people are rubbish at self-reflection and you need to practice it to be good at it, like anything else. Lots of people approach it in terrible ways and it leads to really bad outcomes - giving up immediately, doom loops, too much self-criticism - so it really does need to be done (to use a more modern reference) mindfully.
I agree, however why is that small issues are so large when trying to sleep at night? A little thought we can reflect on becomes a big problem late at night while trying to sleep.
This immediately brings to mind the Seinfeld episode where Ellen's boyfriend stares blankly at the back of the airplane seat in front of him on a long international flight.
That being said, I generally agree with the sentiment.
> good faith or bad faith, doesn't matter; as long as we have the faith that can get skeptics to rewrite their firmware without actual violence
I prefer my faiths justified, but if you lack that constraint, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, and so the Age of Aquarius ought to be rolling around within your ~250 year timeframe?
This is such an Internet response. Perhaps a bigger problem than not being able to sit alone is not being able to cope with a single sentence that doesn't cover every contingency in the universe.
Wish there was more rigorous studies on this. Yesterday I got stuck waiting for a train for 3 hours with a dead phone, so I walked around Boston and an old lady sat down at the park to talk to me about her dogs. I got back to the station an hour too early and read the beginning of a book someone left behind.
When waiting for lifts, instead of focusing on my phone in the vain hope of finding something useful and enlightening, I have a quick chat with those around me.
Unsurprisingly, the security guards and other neighbours now say hi to me regularly.
“should be allowed”, in practice, means “should be forced”, since it means saying no to the huge collection of devices (TVs, computers, tablets, nintendos etc) that prevent boredom.
You could argue by providing those things you’re forcing them into perpetual stimulation. It’s a matter of perspective. The difference is that like sugar, unless we’re using our rationality to override the impulse, we’ll always pick stimulation though that’s not necessarily healthy.
I’m a geek. My kids are geeks. To not provide them access to a computer because there’s bad addictive things on computers is like not teaching kids to read because there’s harmful books.
In reality, things are never so black and white. When I tell my kids “no youtube, no gaming, but you’re allowed to use Scratch” there’s a risk they’re just browse scratch’s endless catalog of games made by others, plenty of which are impressively fun. So then I gotta say no to that too. But then my youngest wants to use Scratch with a youtube tutorial. That’s fine right? Well yes it is but it also means there’s the addictive recommendation cycle right there on the screen too. He’s not allowed to click on them but that’s hard to resist etc etc. It’s all solvable but it’s all very nuanced and makers of apps and platforms (including MIT) actively work against you at every step.
My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children. It’s simple in the abstract and super messy in reality.
Words means things. If I ask you for something again and again, you then provides it for me as a gift for christmas, using the word "forcing" is massively inappropriate.
It is not just a question of perspective. It is quite literally a question of what word means.
Yeah, that's intuitively not a fate I would want to wish on my own kids. I'm just old enough to have spent the first ~14 years of my life without any personal computing devices, and I remember the boredom being agonizing.
Now, the kind of device I would provide is another story. Unfettered access to the Internet at large, including social media, is probably not well advised - access to Wikipedia probably is. Questions of degree.
Right. But if we interpret parent charitably they probably agree with you. The device itself isn’t evil, and the internet isn’t either. However, 7 second videos tailor made to hijack our reward systems could very well cause developmental issues simply by taking attention from one place and moving it elsewhere.
There are adults that can’t handle slot machines. Many more seem to be unable to handle social media. I’m very seriously recommending friends and family to limit it. With children it’s more hands-on, so as a parent it wouldn’t just be recommendations.
Boredom can be filled with... books! I think that going for a "personal computing device" first is in general a bad idea and I'm really glad for the first ~14 years of my life I also didn't have any because I'm not sure I would have had the self control to avoid just getting suckered in, and I feel lucky I developed a reading habit instead.
Sometimes it seems to me that many of us are in a state of
permanent entertainment. It has become our default mode so
any break from it may trigger even anxiety..
In my life I find that what works the best for my kid and for
myself are physical activities such as climbing, swimming and
walks in forest.
I'm trying to find ways to replace dopamine with serotonin
(replacing pleasure with happiness) and it seems that usually
involves some form of physical activity where mind needs to
focus on the movement and surroundings, so that there is
simply not much room for thinking and desires.
I'm not saying its evil or anything, but on demand TV is IMO not a good thing for kids. It can be a real battle to get my daughter away from Bluey. Back in my day, we had to wait at least a day for the next episode, or often a week, or more! TV was actually "seasonal", which it no longer is.
I firmly believe that humans need seasons, i.e. periods of time that are different from each other, either summer, winter etc, or periods where a TV show is simply not accessible.
What almost always works to get away from TV, though, is if _I_ start a project, and within minutes my daughter will have picked up her own project, and we'll be companionably working on something.
But I also think that current ability to see the series at once and then be done with that is strictly superior over past "episode once a week" schedule. First, it leads to way more interesting shows, but also it affects my life much less.
The tv schedule used to rule peoples days, they would try to be at home for the show, they would stop socializing and what not just to see the show.
A generation that cannot endure boredom will be a generation of little people… unduly divorced from the slow processes of nature, in whom every vital impulse withers, as though they were cut flowers in a vase.
Readit News
-Playing in storm drains. Inside the narrow tunnels I might add.
-Abandoned construction sites.
-Railway tracks. Putting things o the rails waiting for the train to see what happened. Everything from rocks to toys to coins.
-Dumpster diving in large dumpsters. There was a soap factory near us and wed dive for schampoo or hairgel.
-Jumping in the biohazard pond looking for frogs eggs.
-Throwing things off bridges.
-Climbing various constructions, houses and dubios trees.
-Competing in who could jump from the highest roof.
Kids not only could get hurt. We did. Legs were broken. No one died fortunately.
Bored kids outside is not really as romantic as many would have it. Not arguing against boredom, constant stimuli is not healthy.
That being said, unsupervised bored kids can lead to some very dangerous outcomes.
There are definitely many benefits to socialization outside, but let’s not forget the tradeoffs. Mental health can be repaired (I.e. ozempic for the mind?), permanent injuries - much less so.
(I picked an extreme example to prove a point, I’m not suggesting the risks of playing outside today are equivalent. But the risks are real nonetheless)
Technically, the jury is still out on this. I don't think anyone's done any kind of study of how childhood YouTube brainrot affects their long term outlook during adulthood, simply because YouTube brainrot is too new. For what it's worth, if I had to bet money, I'd agree with you that "socialized, bonded, explored, etc." is better than YouTube, but I don't think this has been proven yet. It's just a gut feeling.
IMHO, a lot of these analyses suffer from survivorship bias; the ones who died don't get to tell you it was a bad idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
You forgot school shooters exist.
It seems obvious there is a direct link between environment and behavior, but what he started doing was like "programming the environment" in order to trigger behavior changes.
Why would we litter if the trashcan is nearby ? Why would we go out of our way with cables if power-socket is on every table ?
The same way I wonder if we cannot "program" the environment for kids, in a way that allows us to let them get bored out, but in such a situation that is not dangerous but also productively interesting for the kids.
It is not the same to get bored out outside nearby a train track or in the industrial area, than in a somewhat controlled area ?
What do we want to expose them to ? We already know it might want to try crazy stuff ; but I guess we can reduce the danger factors and increase area for more interesting activities ? Also, this is all linked to age and I'm not sure we can make generic rules.
Growing up in a farm is much different than growing up in the streets, and ultimately, my parents and I think a lot of parents, decide to live where kids are safe to grow with somewhat nice activities and people around them.
(Note that I also met a couple that completely cut themselves from the world and they really had to come back to society when the kid came to age, just because a kid requires social interactions with people it's age)
Yes, you find out your kid was throwing stuff off bridges or being a vile bully, you come down like a pile of bricks.
But that doesn’t mean a full safety-rail environment. That means kids will jump off high places and break into others and we slap them on the wrist and carry on. That means lots of broken bones and the very occasional tragedy. Because a whole generation prone to mental illness and incapable of autonomy is infinitely worse. I think we’ve learned that by now.
But harder to list the benefits learnt, because they are often subconcious.
Even into my 30s I used to wake up in a panic remembering all the situations where I’ve almost died because I was just a little bored.
It sounds like the nostalgia in the comments here are akin to “I was poor, so you’re going to know what it’s like being poor too”.
What happened / happens? I've always wondered.
I guess the rock gets crushed?
What about trams, where the rails are instead submerged in a "crack" in the ground?
We did dumpster diving too and playing with fire :-)
https://youtu.be/agznZBiK_Bs?si=iax3oQ67Wn-_umpk
Easier said than done if it is your kids taking risks, but kids and parents need room to learn and grow.
Sorry, but we had been living like that for ages before helicopter parents became the norm. Kids didn't die in the streets by the truckload, or jump off of roofs to their doom any any number to statistically matter, as this alarmist comment implies.
Compare that to the sheltered, all-wishes-granted and no minute spent w/o distractions like social media, kids. Started with Gen Z who get all angsty, with panic attacks, when they have to start performing, i.e., during final exams and the like. And never learned to deal with emotions and free-floating thoughts, handling themself, keeping calm.
(all observed from multiple coworkers being parents, some had to bring their offspring to psychiatric therapy - of course, driven, as taking public transport on their own would be too much!)
Due to our normal childhood, we could handle situations later in life where today's offspring inevitably fails.
- The parent who grew up in the <more rugged years> self-identify as a tough rugrat who had fun and was fearless; not a wuzz like those modern kids (“kids” here excludes their own)
- But the parent would rather that their kids be safe than to have to pain themselves worrying about them constantly
Youth criminality, alcoholism rates, teenage pregnancies are down and that is a good thing.
Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote:
> When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
I wonder what the equivalent is for knowing how to be the perfect parent until becoming one yourself.
Deleted Comment
In the past we had moments we were bored. Now, we always have a phone or other screen were we can indulge on dopamine.
The more appropriate common vernacular is “instant gratification” IMO. (And interestingly dopamine is associated with expectations of things like pleasure. But if you pull out your phone immediately when nothing is happening then there is a very small window for expectation to happen.)
It is about the same now but I genuenly have much more to do, miss the times of doing nothing. Whenever I have to travel that is the time of reflection. Instead of pushing my nose into the mobile I stare outside or try to observe others without being creepy. It is easier nowadays, 90% of travellers use mobile. They don't know what happens around them. Luckily this mobile and tablet revolution passed me by, likely because of my occupation. I have all day at the computer I can use 30-60 min away, it is not enough actually.
best get used to it
not much else to do in-between here and Alpha Centauri :)
Sitting quiety will make you self-reflect. Self reflection will reduce stress and fear. Reduction of stress and less fear is a reduction in problems caused by human error, and negativity towards eachother (due to fear).
People will say things like this, and then miss how many people immediately become uncomfortable with sitting quietly lest they face the risk of self-reflection, and how many social tools for avoiding it we have.
That being said, I generally agree with the sentiment.
--not DXP
If you open the window some flies will get in
--DXP
If enough flies get in, the housecats will be more interested in them than in the pigeons outside?
I prefer my faiths justified, but if you lack that constraint, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, and so the Age of Aquarius ought to be rolling around within your ~250 year timeframe?
Yes, there are a number of problems that can be solved by sitting quietly, but there are many more problems that cannot.
- A fire
- An angry girlfriend
- Racism
- A border dispute
- Monopolies
- Corruption
- War
And even for fires good amount of fires is caused by that...
Can we get a (2024) study on this?
Unsurprisingly, the security guards and other neighbours now say hi to me regularly.
In reality, things are never so black and white. When I tell my kids “no youtube, no gaming, but you’re allowed to use Scratch” there’s a risk they’re just browse scratch’s endless catalog of games made by others, plenty of which are impressively fun. So then I gotta say no to that too. But then my youngest wants to use Scratch with a youtube tutorial. That’s fine right? Well yes it is but it also means there’s the addictive recommendation cycle right there on the screen too. He’s not allowed to click on them but that’s hard to resist etc etc. It’s all solvable but it’s all very nuanced and makers of apps and platforms (including MIT) actively work against you at every step.
My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children. It’s simple in the abstract and super messy in reality.
It is not just a question of perspective. It is quite literally a question of what word means.
Now, the kind of device I would provide is another story. Unfettered access to the Internet at large, including social media, is probably not well advised - access to Wikipedia probably is. Questions of degree.
There are adults that can’t handle slot machines. Many more seem to be unable to handle social media. I’m very seriously recommending friends and family to limit it. With children it’s more hands-on, so as a parent it wouldn’t just be recommendations.
If you lived in a farm 200 miles from any kid in rural Nebraska maybe. And even there there would be tons of adventures to have on one's own.
In my life I find that what works the best for my kid and for myself are physical activities such as climbing, swimming and walks in forest.
I'm trying to find ways to replace dopamine with serotonin (replacing pleasure with happiness) and it seems that usually involves some form of physical activity where mind needs to focus on the movement and surroundings, so that there is simply not much room for thinking and desires.
if he gets less tv or whatever, for a period, he gets deeply invested in lego or drawing or similar
I firmly believe that humans need seasons, i.e. periods of time that are different from each other, either summer, winter etc, or periods where a TV show is simply not accessible.
What almost always works to get away from TV, though, is if _I_ start a project, and within minutes my daughter will have picked up her own project, and we'll be companionably working on something.
But I also think that current ability to see the series at once and then be done with that is strictly superior over past "episode once a week" schedule. First, it leads to way more interesting shows, but also it affects my life much less.
The tv schedule used to rule peoples days, they would try to be at home for the show, they would stop socializing and what not just to see the show.
This is actually a very weird part about living in Los Angeles. It doesn’t feel like time passes when the weather is always the same.
I find that setting (and enforcing!) a limit works great though. Play X episodes a day, the turn the TV off.
—Bertrand Russell