Forum menu
[img] 
[/img]
He said it was a tool for creativity and learning, which I agree with.
Yes but it's ALSO an incredibly addictive and demanding platform for peddling masses of shite at kids, which can steal a huge amount of time for little benefit. Quite unlike paper.
... which can steal a huge amount of time for little benefit. Quite unlike paper.
Have you never read the DaVinci Code?
Yes but it's ALSO an incredibly addictive and demanding platform for peddling masses of shite at kids, which can steal a huge amount of time for little benefit. Quite unlike paper.
That's not an inherent fault of the device, it's poor management of the device by the parents.
If you want your kids to draw pictures you give them some paper and water-soluble crayons, not give them the keys to the shed and tell them to help themselves to paint.
That's like saying heroin isn't addictive unless you inject it.
Parental management is exactly what's being discussed here. And limiting screen time is one several ways we do it in our house. There are no hard and fast time limits though as NOTHING is more infuriating than being told to stop something when you're caught up in it.
Quite unlike paper.
Paper comes pre-installed with Hangman, Noughts & Crosses, Dots & Boxes, Battleship and a hundred other silly distracting games that got me through school before the invention of smartphones & tablets.
And some of those [url=
taught me things[/url].
Just like some of the silly distracting games on smartphones and tablets can.
That's not an inherent fault of the device, it's poor management of the device by the parents.
Exactly - content not medium.
Books aren't inherently bad just because [s]Twilight[/s] bad literature exists.
Tablets aren't inherently bad just because there are less edifying ways to use them.
Even TV isn't inherently bad or dumb.
Parental management is exactly what's being discussed here. And limiting screen time is one several ways we do it in our house.
And per the comic strip, I think that blanket limits on "screen time" makes as much sense in the modern world as limiting paper time did in our age.
If I limit anything it's the content, not the medium.
That's like saying heroin isn't addictive unless you inject it.
No it's not, unless your parents are hooking you up with the local dealer.
The parent provides tablet for their kids and they preload it with age-appropriate apps that aren't going to "peddle masses of shite." No?
Maybe we're at cross purposes and I'm misunderstanding what you're saying? If they've got unrestriced app store access then yes, they might end up running up a second mortgage on Candybirdsville micropayments. If they [i]haven't[/i] got unfettered access to any old crap they happen to download, then the scenario you describe just doesn't exist.
Otherwise, this is just the same argument my generation of kids had with computers and our parent's generation had with television. Or rock and roll. Or if you go back far enough, books.
Blaming the medium is just failing to take responsibility.
I think that blanket limits on "screen time" makes as much sense in the modern world as limiting paper time did in our age.
Agreed about a 'blanket' limit being wrong, though I think it's reasonable to impose a time limit if they're doing one activity to the exclusion of everything else. That's not particularly healthy, whether it's playing Candy Crush, watching Frozen, or playing football.
Case in point, a mate of mine has a genuine concern that his daughter is reading too much. She's hoovering up like a book a day and a) he can't keep up and b) is worried about the development of her social skills.
That's not what I'm doing. I AM taking responsibility. One of the ways of doing so is limiting scren time, which is what that cartoon is trashing as ridiculous.
As you say, gaming is fun, it's fun when you're 6 too, so there are games on the tablet. Some are educational, some are just silly. Even the silly ones teach some stuff to the really young kids.
However they will play them endlessly if you let them. At least, ours will. So we manage it, in a number of ways. One of which is calling time on it when we think they've gone past the level of fun diversion and are just unable to tear themselves away.
I think it's reasonable to impose a time limit if they're doing one activity to the exclusion of everything else. That's not particularly healthy, whether it's playing Candy Crush, watching Frozen, or playing football.
Absolutely - I meant that phrase to work both ways - it might make sense to impose a limit if they are being all-consumed by an activity (regardless of the medium).
Though to be honest we probably all got a bit obsessive at some point in our young lives (bikes, airfix, D&D, books, computers, bad rock, etc).
Sure.
I don't recall ever having "computer time" but then, I didn't have "Lego time" or "playing out" time either.
However they will play them endlessly if you let them. At least, ours will. So we manage it, in a number of ways. One of which is calling time on it when we think they've gone past the level of fun diversion and are just unable to tear themselves away
I'm not a parent, but if it were me I'd be providing attractive alternatives rather than saying "right, time's up!"
if it were me I'd be providing attractive alternatives rather than saying "right, time's up!"
Me too.. that's why they haven't played on the tablet for about a month... and probably didn't for a month before that either..
Though to be honest we probably all got a bit obsessive at some point in our young lives
Yeah. Again, so long as it's not all-consuming, I'm not wholly convinced that that's inherently a bad thing either. I mean, I was obsessed with computers as a kid; fast forward thirty years and I've turned it into a life-long, badly-paying career.
Lego might be a better example. I was obsessive, but it gave me the skills to follow instructions, to use my imagination to create, to problem-solve, to have a desire to find out how things worked. Could my parents have pre-empted that? They were probably just happy that I was quiet and not trying to take the television apart.
Me too.. that's why they haven't played on the tablet for about a month... and probably didn't for a month before that either..
Is it the reason? Why do you feel the need to restrict their tablet time then, when it seems that they're self-moderating? That makes no sense.
When they play on it (or other electronic devices) they will do so for hours. However, with a bit of discouragement they won't do so again for a while.
If we left it on charge in full view, and used it ourselves a lot, they'd ask for it more, and if they got into the habit of playing on it a lot they'd become little techno junkies craving their fix. At 6 and 3 they are still young and suggestible enough to be manipulated like this. Because they have such a full and rich play environment at home they easily find other self-led games to play and things to do, so with a little gentle management they forget the tablet for a while. It is clear from observation that these specific two kids get far more from real life make-believe and creative play than they do from tablet games, at this stage in life.
Also, we've pretty much burned through every completely free (ie not a front for in-game payments) age-appropriate game on the play store. We spent far more time researching and selecting PS3 games for them, because a) they are generally much less banal and b) we can all join in. Plus many of them are multi-player and inherently more social.
Lego might be a better example. I was obsessive, but it gave me the skills to follow instructions, to use my imagination to create, to problem-solve
Yep. I hear parents panicking about kids spending time on Minecraft and I think: it's modern LEGO, with an infinite building area and supply of bricks plus the ability to add some logic.
If they are actually creating some stuff with it and solving problems, and it isn't all consuming, then that's no bad thing. Some of these kids may be our future architects.
So you're not restricting play time at all, then. You're just not leaving it lying around to tempt them and giving them something else to do instead. Which is admirable, but I'm baffled as to what that has to do with either the cartoon you objected to or your initial "limiting screen time" argument?
We are restricting it - If they do play it, we'll take it off them if we think they've been on it too long. That's limiting screen time, no? Let me re-phrase the first sentence:
When they play on it (or other electronic devices) they would do so for hours if we let them
Yet, you're letting them now aren't you? And they've not played on them in months?
Sorry, I'm getting in danger of "arguing on the Internet" now and that's not my intention. But I wonder, have they lost interest because you've trained them out of it, or because the novelty's worn off? And, is that a good thing?
A bit of both. We started limiting it when we saw how addictive it was for them - and they seem to have become used to accepting limits. We explain how these things need to be limited and why, and fortunately our eldest accepts these explanations. And we give them something else to do.
And we've not paid for any games, (although we did for some of the decent ones on phones like Kinectimals) which limits things quite a lot. As a player of grown up games you might not appreciate how much stuff there is that seems purely designed to get kids to run up lots of in-app purchases.
We avoided that issue by getting a tablet with whichever Android version has the user accounts, and creating their own google accounts without any credit card details. Our grown-up accounts have PINs.