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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Seeing lots of comments about over scheduling children's free time.
I took music lessons, did Cub Scouts Weeblos & Boy Scouts, played little league, played Pop Warner & high school football and ran track. All after school activities.
As for freedom.. I took SF MUNI, BART, Ferries and Golden Gate Transit starting at 7 year old. Any free time I had was spent playing with friends. And I had to be home by the time the street lights came on.
So it is possible to have a lot of after school activities and plenty of time to play with friends and explore the world.
Scouting is an interesting example because my experience included both ends of the scheduling vs. freedom spectrum. My first troop was all about the weekly meetings, merit badge classes, memorization, structured activities, and the like. Camping trips almost always had a specific goal, like hiking a certain trail or getting certain merit badges. My second troop was about going camping and making our own fun. Once the necessary duties were out of the way, we were pretty much left to our own devices and it was infinitely more rewarding, both as a kid and in my retrospective analysis. I learned so much more just figuring things out with the other boys, especially on the social development side.
Meanwhile I know people who look at analytics and numbers to decide what sports and activities their child (who is still in elementary school!) should be doing in order to maximize college admissions chances. It's madness. Don't play violin (even if you like it) because there are too many people doing that, you have to do something unique. Don't play basketball, it's too common and therefore too hard to stand out, you have to do something exotic. It's better to be average at something rare and expensive than pretty good at something ordinary.
We ramp up the pressure younger than ever, tell people that their entire future hinges on their success and getting ahead of their peers right now, then we're surprised that people crack under the stress?
(FWIW, the sports that seem to come up on top are rich, exclusive sports like fencing and polo, because they serve well as class signifiers in admissions)
> Meanwhile I know people who look at analytics and numbers to decide what sports and activities their child (who is still in elementary school!) should be doing in order to maximize college admissions chances.
Those people are dumb; ignore them. They're "fighting the last war", so to say.
Seriously, an orchestra needs 30-40 violins per tuba. There has to be a lot of violin players, or there is no orchestra (the Harvard orchestra is short on violin players right now [1] - they certainly aren't going to be taking many more "unusual" instruments without more violins)
The injury rates for young athletes keeps increasing (as in younger than 25-30). Plenty of research shows that specializing in a single sport at a young age is a strong contributor to this. Of course those "elite" coaches want your kid to give up everything else; when your kid burns out or get injured the coach just moves on to the next kid in line.
Just opt out of this system, your kids will be fine.
Yeah again the same social aspect is the challenge. We’ve resolved to tell our kids to forge their own path but they hear differently from friends, teachers, and other parents.
Anecdotal, but still.. back when I was a kid, we had school until 13h (1pm), maybe an hour more or less, and after that we were 'free'. We did have some homework, but that was usually left for the evening, or copied in school the next day. We did a bunch of stupid stuff, went around, from 'adventurous' trips around the city to sitting on the same benches for 6 hours talking about stupid stuff and arguing about stuff, that we couldn't google right then, because google didn't exist yet. They (the parents) didn't even wait for us to come to dinner, since sometimes we were impossible to reach (if we weren't on the same benches next to the apartment buildings).
"Kids these days" (at least the ones I know) have their whole days scheduled for 'stuff'... school, home, music lessons, sport practice, come back home at 8pm, homework, sleep. On weekends, they're packed in the cars and taken somewhere 'in nature/countryside', so they wouldn't spend their days at home or outside sitting on a bench for the whole day.
I'm an adult now, for quite a few years, and the thing I miss the most about childhood is the "freedom",... after school, you were free to do whatever, and during the summer, you were free for 2.5 months... no responsibilities, no timetables, schedules, no nothing... just kids and stupid (then important) kid stuff.
Old guy perspective: When I was a kid(tm), I played with a neighbor almost every weekend be it skateboarding, building a fort, playing Nintendo, or riding bikes around the neighbor. That was back when toy guns didn't have orange tips and parks didn't have ultra-safe, ultra-boring equipment.
Perhaps the real losses of community and public commons (other countries call it "commonwealth") create a desert of human interaction. Maybe this is partly why the US has an absurd number of depressed and maladjusted young people.
I am especially interested to hear from non-USA readers of HN, as to how much of this sounds like what is happening in their countries vs. how much is a unique American issue.
Looking back I've never been more active on internet stuff, social media, mindless youtube, the hn loop, than when unable to hang out IRL and do stuff with friends.
Given screens are correlated with mental health issues, the article premise seems plausible.
>> He notes that this is a correlation, not proof of causation, although experiments with animals support the claim that play deprivation causes anxiety and poor social development.
I also wonder if "playing" in Minecraft, or Roblox supports this definition of play. Or even RPGs like DnD. It's interactive, and allows children to experiment. It's not a physical world, but I don't know if these parameters were explored.
The argument in TFA makes sense at a conceptual level. Kids that aren’t allowed to play will be a neurotic mess.
But I hesitate to write off teen mental health as just a result of over parenting or social media. Those are probably contributing factors, how much is not clear to me.
Another contributing factor is the economic knife hanging over everyone’s head. It’s not enough to just finish high school like it was in the 1950s. It’s not even enough to finish a bachelor’s degree now, even though only 40% of millennials have accomplished that. So just being above average isn’t enough. You need to be excellent.
If you compare pretty much any other time in American history to the post-war economy, every metric is going to look worse. Does it mean we should be letting kids play tackle pom pom [1] during recess? So I’m not convinced by the hand-wavy look how great things were back in the day analysis.
This analysis would be much stronger if it tried to account for confounding factors. For example analyzing countries where life expectancy is not decreasing.
I haven’t looked into the data carefully but this strikes me as implausible at first impression for a few reasons.
One is that cultures with highly structured time for kids like China do not have the same dramatic rises in mental illness, that I’m aware of. Two is that this seems to only apply to middle class or rich western kids (unsurprising for academic studies). You really think poor kids are spending too much time at piano lessons and not playing? No they have the opposite problem of too much lack of structure.
Overall this seems quite narrow minded to me. The only part of this that rings true is the cultural phenomenon of wanting to make feel everyone safe all the time, even from mere ideas and speech.
The kid that does really well in school, makes it big is going to have an opportunity for a lot more play later in life. The kid who does nothing but play will probably end up having very little opportunity and have to work long hours later in life to barely make ends meet with lots of stress and little opportunity for play. So its a trade off.
Obviously if the kid comes from a rich family that is willing to support and leave all of their money to the kid that changes the equation, but I have seen examples where those kids still ended up as drug addicts etc..
I don't think it's as simple as having 100% play vs 100% work. There's got to be some optimum balance here that we're clearly not satisfying, with our flawed notion that 100% work is the best route. It's possible for people to have a satisfying social life while also doing very well in school, and it's also possible for a loner to have a depressing life while failing at school.
> The kid that does really well in school, makes it big is going to have an opportunity for a lot more play later in life.
Really? There's a constant push to "grind" more, even for well-paid professionals. This is a cultural problem, not one of attainment. Consider how Elon Musk, one of the richest people in the world, claims to work ~16 hours a day. Someone with a steady job in construction probably has a lot more free time than him.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|2 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] lolinder|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cloudripper|2 years ago|reply
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..
[+] [-] smogcutter|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pomian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrguyorama|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ecf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorpalhex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lossolo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianmcc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theptip|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Aachen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emadda|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raincole|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iancmceachern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roody15|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GoodJokes|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] onetokeoverthe|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] atonse|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] caesil|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] alexpetralia|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] elibailey|2 years ago|reply
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_Alone https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes
[+] [-] deanmoriarty|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] legitster|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] renewiltord|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] clsec|2 years ago|reply
I took music lessons, did Cub Scouts Weeblos & Boy Scouts, played little league, played Pop Warner & high school football and ran track. All after school activities.
As for freedom.. I took SF MUNI, BART, Ferries and Golden Gate Transit starting at 7 year old. Any free time I had was spent playing with friends. And I had to be home by the time the street lights came on.
So it is possible to have a lot of after school activities and plenty of time to play with friends and explore the world.
[+] [-] ddq|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnimick|2 years ago|reply
We ramp up the pressure younger than ever, tell people that their entire future hinges on their success and getting ahead of their peers right now, then we're surprised that people crack under the stress?
(FWIW, the sports that seem to come up on top are rich, exclusive sports like fencing and polo, because they serve well as class signifiers in admissions)
[+] [-] Kon-Peki|2 years ago|reply
Those people are dumb; ignore them. They're "fighting the last war", so to say.
Seriously, an orchestra needs 30-40 violins per tuba. There has to be a lot of violin players, or there is no orchestra (the Harvard orchestra is short on violin players right now [1] - they certainly aren't going to be taking many more "unusual" instruments without more violins)
The injury rates for young athletes keeps increasing (as in younger than 25-30). Plenty of research shows that specializing in a single sport at a young age is a strong contributor to this. Of course those "elite" coaches want your kid to give up everything else; when your kid burns out or get injured the coach just moves on to the next kid in line.
Just opt out of this system, your kids will be fine.
[1] https://www.harvardradcliffeorchestra.org/current-roster
[+] [-] doubled112|2 years ago|reply
Even children need to be optimized for maximum success (so profit) now? Must have missed that memo.
[+] [-] hooverd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atonse|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|2 years ago|reply
"Kids these days" (at least the ones I know) have their whole days scheduled for 'stuff'... school, home, music lessons, sport practice, come back home at 8pm, homework, sleep. On weekends, they're packed in the cars and taken somewhere 'in nature/countryside', so they wouldn't spend their days at home or outside sitting on a bench for the whole day.
I'm an adult now, for quite a few years, and the thing I miss the most about childhood is the "freedom",... after school, you were free to do whatever, and during the summer, you were free for 2.5 months... no responsibilities, no timetables, schedules, no nothing... just kids and stupid (then important) kid stuff.
[+] [-] 1letterunixname|2 years ago|reply
Perhaps the real losses of community and public commons (other countries call it "commonwealth") create a desert of human interaction. Maybe this is partly why the US has an absurd number of depressed and maladjusted young people.
[+] [-] rossdavidh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j-bos|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamredwoods|2 years ago|reply
>> He notes that this is a correlation, not proof of causation, although experiments with animals support the claim that play deprivation causes anxiety and poor social development.
I also wonder if "playing" in Minecraft, or Roblox supports this definition of play. Or even RPGs like DnD. It's interactive, and allows children to experiment. It's not a physical world, but I don't know if these parameters were explored.
[+] [-] janalsncm|2 years ago|reply
But I hesitate to write off teen mental health as just a result of over parenting or social media. Those are probably contributing factors, how much is not clear to me.
Another contributing factor is the economic knife hanging over everyone’s head. It’s not enough to just finish high school like it was in the 1950s. It’s not even enough to finish a bachelor’s degree now, even though only 40% of millennials have accomplished that. So just being above average isn’t enough. You need to be excellent.
If you compare pretty much any other time in American history to the post-war economy, every metric is going to look worse. Does it mean we should be letting kids play tackle pom pom [1] during recess? So I’m not convinced by the hand-wavy look how great things were back in the day analysis.
This analysis would be much stronger if it tried to account for confounding factors. For example analyzing countries where life expectancy is not decreasing.
[1] https://www.yellowbullet.com/threads/school-yard-recess-game...
[+] [-] itronitron|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outlace|2 years ago|reply
One is that cultures with highly structured time for kids like China do not have the same dramatic rises in mental illness, that I’m aware of. Two is that this seems to only apply to middle class or rich western kids (unsurprising for academic studies). You really think poor kids are spending too much time at piano lessons and not playing? No they have the opposite problem of too much lack of structure.
Overall this seems quite narrow minded to me. The only part of this that rings true is the cultural phenomenon of wanting to make feel everyone safe all the time, even from mere ideas and speech.
[+] [-] dunkmaster|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lgleason|2 years ago|reply
Obviously if the kid comes from a rich family that is willing to support and leave all of their money to the kid that changes the equation, but I have seen examples where those kids still ended up as drug addicts etc..
[+] [-] tinycombinator|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexandrB|2 years ago|reply
Really? There's a constant push to "grind" more, even for well-paid professionals. This is a cultural problem, not one of attainment. Consider how Elon Musk, one of the richest people in the world, claims to work ~16 hours a day. Someone with a steady job in construction probably has a lot more free time than him.
[+] [-] tegmark|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]