Developmental Value in Gaming?

Our daughter turns 3 tomorrow (incredibly). If I stop to think about it, I guess our approach to screen time and technology has just evolved organically without us ever talking about set limits. We have an iPad in the house, and she's plenty capable of firing up PBS Kids and picking out whatever she's in the mood for (Daniel Tiger, Martha the dog, Peg Plus Cat, etc). But I have to say that she doesn't really ask to use it much, and we don't leave it out where she can just get at it whenever. Sometimes I let her use it for a few minutes if I'm going to be busy in the kitchen and just need her out of my hair, and sometimes I let her watch something on a weekend morning if I'm just not at the races yet and want a half hour more sleep. On rainy or cold days, sometimes it's nice to just pop in a Frozen or Ratatouille and let her watch a movie, but television is essentially not part of our routine, especially not during the work week.

Let me preface the following clearly--I'm NOT trying to get all holier-than-thou or preachy or do any kind of "my kid is better than your kid" thing. I am convinced she has way more fun actively playing with us, and that is always her top request. The amount of time she spends with an iPad (learning apps and/or PBS Kids) is dwarfed by the amount of time we are building Legos, playing kitchen, pretending to go to the grocery store, playing pirates, reading books, playing Candyland/Sorry/Chutes-and-Ladders, and so on. I would even expand it to just one-on-one time generally, it isn't even about play. She loves to help me cook in the kitchen, go actual grocery shopping, help with outdoor projects, and all kinds of other things.

I think it's only natural that the amount of technology in her life is going to increase as she grows up. The toothpaste is out of the tube on that, I don't expect or even want that her childhood will mirror my own. But I'm hopeful that we'll stay on top of things and keep a healthy balance. The iPad is a brilliant device--far and away the best piece of technology I've ever owned. Now that we are well into the "why?" phase, it's super for helping to answer questions and show her things that we can talk about together (e.g., if we get to talking about rockets, we can watch a space shuttle launch video and that kicks off a whole different set of questions).

JoelCFC25 wrote:
Let me preface the following clearly--I'm NOT trying to get all holier-than-thou or preachy or do any kind of "my kid is better than your kid" thing. I am convinced she has way more fun actively playing with us, and that is always her top request. The amount of time she spends with an iPad (learning apps and/or PBS Kids) is dwarfed by the amount of time we are building Legos, playing kitchen, pretending to go to the grocery store, playing pirates, reading books, playing Candyland/Sorry/Chutes-and-Ladders, and so on. I would even expand it to just one-on-one time generally, it isn't even about play. She loves to help me cook in the kitchen, go actual grocery shopping, help with outdoor projects, and all kinds of other things.

I can't speak for all kids but this is true for us too. My son wants to play with me more than anything else and while I am almost always totally down for this I do think there is a lot of value in independent play and in boredom (as Idsbomber talks about). So sometimes I try to hold off. The iPad (which is what he's most familiar with) is the only real tech toy he knows well.. and he knows it really well. He doesn't really request it, it's more that if he sees it.

I think what's missing in this conversation (it's been touched on lightly) is how WE behave. If my son sees that I'm on the iPad then he wants it too. Same with my wife. So normally he doesn't think about it until one of us brings it out. Which is tough because my wife and I are working with a team to make iPad apps for kids. Story books mostly. I do the music and sound effects and she does the images (first one should come out this year, it's called "City Nights" [mini plug]). So it does come out more often than it should. Once he sees it, he wants it, unless one of us makes it our goal to play with him actively. These days we mainly go planet hopping. He just learned all the names of the planets and he's obsessed with outer space.

I guess what I'm trying to say.. about me, is that I have to be very careful how I behave so that I don't set a poor example. I fuck that up on occasion. I have to actively put my phone away so he doesn't see me checking it for work e-mails every 30 minutes. That kind of thing.

Mr. White wrote: Maybe...but I don't think we're getting it wrong. Perhaps I've got blinders on to what I'm saying, but I feel what we're talking about goes hand and hand with watching too much TV or eating too much candy. These are all things kids would gorge themselves on if left to their own devices. No different than when we were kids. My parents didn't let me watch endless television while bombing myself on sugar cereals all day.

First off, no, I don't think anyone here is totally losing their shit in wildly crazy ways over video games. The discussion itself just sparked an idea for me to explore in more depth. I don't think I'd even do much current, since the appeal for me and direction of inquiry would be to not just look at what people were freaking out over, but to pull data that can then be used to try and interpret just how worthy a cause it was to freak out over. Sort of for good or bad, did this thing actually have these far reaching consequences or not? Did D&D make a bunch of kids get into Satan? Knee jerk reaction says, duh of course not, but what data exists to actually back this up? I think we can in fact see an uptick in people getting into Satan, so maybe D&D did in fact have some role in it? Who knows? I would like to find out!

BUUUUT to the topic at hand, I do think that kids are a lot more self regulating than a lot of parents want to give them credit for. One of my favorite stories from growing up was of this mom being horrified at another mom for not forcing her kids to wear coats, or even shoes, to play outside in the winter. Her answer was just that yeah, they will figure it the fuck out, and if they're not cold, then who the fuck cares?

All of your kids are going to be exposed to everything. Once they are old enough to play with friends even somewhat on their own, they are for fucking sure going to go buck wild on all the things that are "forbidden". Best to help them develop their own self regulation and case/effect comprehension at age appropriate times. Do you decide how much your kid has to eat? Do you hope that they will eventually figure it out for themselves and be able to not call you at 35 for a meal plan every day? Same goes for digital media.

Further, what are we even using at a metric of a good outcome? Life satisfaction? Income? Strong family ties? Cause until that's put forward, we're all just talking about bullshit. Maybe your idea of a great outcome is to help your kid become the next big filmmaker or game designer, so it would follow that a lot of exposure to these things from childhood is a very good thing. I dunno, I think we look at these really short term things, is my kid playing "too much" Nintendo, without even going so far as to define what too much is, or by what metrics it is indeed too much.

I'll give you the metric I'm working with.

I want to give my child the skills and exposure necessary for him to make a choice about what he wants from life and feel like he has enough experience to make that choice intelligently.

So if he wants to be a film maker that's great, a soccer player, fine, a video game designer, fine. I just want to give him enough skills and exposure that a good amount of choices feel viable.

As for how much is too much? I'm constantly trying to figure that out. It's not easy. You kind of feel your way through and hope you don't fuck up too much.

I'd also like to raise a kid who has empathy and respects people... but I think that's a different conversation.

JonJacob wrote:
I'd also like to raise a kid who has empathy and respects people... but I think that's a different conversation.

for that part, it's all about how authoritative you are as a parent. How you blend discipline with love. You need both in large amounts to make kids with empathy that will respect others as well. My mom went too much on the discipline side and not enough on the love side but at least I got both.

I've got to be honest, Matt, but I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with this conversation. I'm not sure I've got anything to say that you seem to be up for.

I've mentioned, that I'd like my kids to have a wide set of experiences and skills...mentioning some examples in passing. Some have been called out as 'boring and pointless', but does that make them worthless? Should I onl allow my child to do stuff I like? If that was the case, I'd ditch all the videogames, since I'm not into them. Nor would he be playing certain sports, reading certain books, watching certain shows, etc.

It seems that most of us all are also struggling with what should/could be considered 'too much' (maybe there isn't such a thing), but your recent post speaks as if you've got some authority on the subject. No, I don't think every one of our kids are going to go buckwild on forbidden fruit (of which no one here has even mentioned forbidding anything), some may, sure, yet you seem certain they all are.

(In one of the other threads, Doug and Casey have brought up studies on the impact of videogames on the brain. Perhaps some of those studies define what is 'too much' and at what age. Maybe some of that discussion can go there.)

This OP was opened, and we have tried to answer as best we're able. Now, it's being leveraged that we're just talking bullshit unless a metric is laid out. Well, it's your thread...what's the metric you want to discuss here? Is there developmental value in gaming if you want your kids to be a director? Is there developmental value in gaming if you want your kids to have a high income? Is there developmental value in gaming if you want your kids to have strong family ties?

I feel like a bit of sabre-rattling is starting to happen here.

What would you like us to discuss?

EDIT: On the parenting story. I don't get it. So...the best way to be a parent...is to not parent? Should I let the kids stick forks in electrical sockets? Should I let them play in traffic? We advance by learning from the experience of others. Besides that, I'd rather tell the kids to put on a jacket than deal with two sick children. And of course..."a wise man has enough sense to get in out of the rain!"



(Really, I just wanted a way to fit in this egg shen quote. )

JonJacob wrote:

JoelCFC25 wrote: I guess what I'm trying to say.. about me, is that I have to be very careful how I behave so that I don't set a poor example. I fuck that up on occasion. I have to actively put my phone away so he doesn't see me checking it for work e-mails every 30 minutes. That kind of thing.

My wife and I have totally struggled with this as well. Modeling is so much of parenting yet of course there's such the temptation after a long day of work to zone out on the phone or whatever...

I guess the discussion I'm trying to have is one of trying to define those metrics. I think we all would have somewhat different ideas about what ones goals as a parent ought to be. Help the kids have a happy, fulfilling life is probabaly the closest to a consesus we could hope for, but that's such a nebulos term. My interest is really more academic than anything personal, as a former teacher I've dealt with a lot of kids and a lot of child development theory and I think it's an interesting subject.

I think this idea of bias in what you expose your kids to based on what you yourself are into bleeds over into what you value and thus what you think of as being a good outcome. How is happiness achieved? There are so many ways to measure success in life, many of which don't play nicely together, so is preparing a kid for academic success better than helping them become the next Michael Jordan? I dunno at all.

I think my position on it all is sort of like JJ, expose them to as much as possible so they can see all sorts of possibilities in life. Kids are so naturally curious and interested in things. The standard US public education system does it's best to quash that by creating a pretty strict hirarchy of what is and isn't of value, along with standarizing the metrics by which ones worth is measured into a narrow focus, and I think that's a huge failing. Kids should be allowed to self direct their lines of inquiry and value what they value. Spending the majority of your time doing something your passionate about seems like a pretty reasonable road to happiness in life.

I wasn't trying to hate on fishing because I don't like it, just making the point that it's of zero interest to me while it seems of interest to you, and thus something you're more likely to value. I look at it as being of the same inherent value as any other activity, which is to say that it's value is found in what one gets out of it. To some people it's an awesome time to go commune with nature, clear your head, learn a useful skill, and provide dinner; for others it's a boring time occasionally torturing fish.

Kids, and adults, are going to largely self direct most of their time, especially when we're talking about leisure time. It doesn't actually matter whatever the activity is in my mind, so long as it's not immediatly dangerous or hurtful/awful to others. So yeah, keep ths kids from electrocuting themselves, but who cares how they personally regulate their own temperature.

How do we feel about someone like Tiger Woods? He was groomed from such a young age to be a masterful golfer, and he sure fucking crushed it for a while. But he's also clearly got some life issues going on (like we all do), so did his father do him a great service or disservice? I think that's why metrics of sucessful outcomes are really the crux of the conversation, and since that's so subjective, it's really hard to come to any kind of answer. World famous success story, but at what cost? And what about the kid who got pushed in the same way but didn't succeed to the same level?

A lot of my position on kids learning is coming from stuff like the Sudsbury model of education which is really focused on letting kids learn whatever they want. The foundational skills develop no matter what the interest is. And if we focus on letting kids drive their own curiosity and passions, they are far more receptive to actually putting in the time to develop the skills because it's a natural growth rather than a forced effort. Does it actually matter if kids read Shakespear or comic books? With both they are developing their literacy skills, but if they hate reading Shakespear but love comics, telling them that their interest is somehow lesser just pushes their interest in reading down and makes them devalue reading.

With video games, I think there is a ton of skill development potential as well as it being a path that can become a source of lifelong happiness and success. I think at some point we all over do it on one thing or another and then we learn ourselves that maybe that wasn't a great idea. Telling your kid a hundred times to not eat a giant bag of candy for dinner won't have near the effect that them doing so at some point and feeling like shit later will. Same with video games and binge playing. I've read a bunch of studies on the subject and the results are still quite conflicted depending on how it's approached and the exact parameters of the study. "Too much" is still really far from having a consensus.

Great post, Matt.

MattLoter wrote: Kids, and adults, are going to largely self direct most of their time, especially when we're talking about leisure time.

One of the fundamental arguments I have with darn near everyone in my kids' lives is the removal of that self-direction, and the imposition of rigid structures. The schools are doing that with their primary curric and in that case I think structure serves kids well and provides them with skills for life. But outside activities have become equally rigid and remarkably complex, generally for reasons that kids don't care about. All activities are three or four days a week, with travel involved, expense, meals brought to every game, and "Blasts" that are sent on a daily basis via email to everyone involved in the program. To some extent I view them as part-time jobs for the kids. Incredibly structured events where adults are taking care of 100% of the details. This in my opinion is a fundamental problem for kids these days, especially ones that want to have three our four hobbies instead of just one.

Every kid team within fifteen miles of my house, baseball, softball, lacrosse, you name it, is nicknamed the "Seahawks" and when I asked the commissioner why he said that it was so that the kids would bond with the high school mascot, and that the primary purpose of youth sports is to provide athletes prepared to play high school sports. Not sure why the high school needs those, but there you go. It's kind of amusing to look at the schedule and see each team with the exact same name.

The commissioner has created an imaginary need, and a very real response in the form of travel teams, away tournaments, matching gym bags, hotel stays, winter speed training . . . when all your eight-year-old kid wants to do is run around on the ball field and have some fun. I ended up pulling my kids from the local programs and carting them to i9 sports which gives them matching t-shirts and two hour sessions on Saturdays at the same field each week.

I think a lot of research has been done on this particular topic, and for good reason. Not sure if there's much fertile ground left there for you.

S.