Hacker News Reader

> Advising kids to lean away from modern life and push back on the progress of distracting technologies will actually be a more anti-social move than not.

It's not about telling kids to unplug completely.

It's about balance.

There are so many endless digital distractions available today that people need to know how and where to draw the line on their consumption. Or they don't recognize that the short-term value they derive from scrolling Twitter or making a $100 gain on their Robinhood app comes at the expense of setting back their desired career goals, or personal fitness goals, or even their social goals.

It's exhausting to listen to mentees complain that they don't have enough time in the day to work out, or read a book they want to read, or cook the healthy meals they want to eat, but then they go on to discuss things like Bitcoin and Dogecoin for 4 hours straight in Slack or recruit their friends into another Twitter argument.

> Accept that today's child is a highly connected, distracted, techno-proficient being and let that be that.

Part of our role as mentors and/or parents is to guide young people in healthier directions.

There's nothing wrong with being connected and techno-proficient, and there's nothing wrong with having some fun on Twitter or Tik Tok. However, that doesn't mean we should go full laissez-faire and tell young people there's nothing wrong with being distracted all day every day.

There are a lot of parallels to diet: There's nothing wrong with eating donuts or cookies or bacon in moderation. However, if you overindulge in sweets, eat 3000 calories a day, and never moderate your intake of anything you're going to accumulate major health problems over the course of your life.

The food analogy is really good.

Like food, hyper-distraction affects different people differently, I've watched really bad habits affect real peoples lives in bad ways, and many people who grow up in a culture where that's normal may never break those habits.

Also like food, I'm spending way more time in front of screens in order to cope with the pandemic. Is it okay? Eh, not really, but I think it's okay to accept the necessity of overindulgence given the circumstances.

> it's okay to accept the necessity of overindulgence given the circumstances

Yes and no. To be honest I am not very happy with all the articles/folks advocating that people should en masse self-medicate during covid with gaming/hours on internet. Its like unless you sit in front of computer/phone there is literally nothing to do at home, just slowly go crazy. I wish governments did recognize this since early pandemics and actually encouraged people to do individual sports outdoors, not effectively banning like in France. That's much better way to keep one fit mentally, and as a bonus physically too which helps not only with covid.

The reason for my opinion is this behavior creates patterns that will be very hard to shed off for many people, once things go +-back to as they were (although I don't think we ever get there 100%). Unfortunately, humans are creatures of habits and wired to create many dependencies, ie on substances, but also activities that produce dopamine rush.

I hope I am wrong in this. Maybe it won't be as bad and the same people would end up with these 'addictions' regardless of covid, maybe a bit less pronounced.

Yeah, I've thought about that, but at least for the people I know personally, they're all bored to death with these stopgap habits and the second it's safe to hang them up and go back to parties, music, and weddings, it's going to be a second roaring 20's.

(But agreed on the "don't take a walk" style lockdowns. And I'm honestly surprised the backlash to them isn't stronger.)

> It's exhausting to listen to mentees complain that they don't have enough time in the day to work out, or read a book they want to read, or cook the healthy meals they want to eat, but then they go on to discuss things like Bitcoin and Dogecoin for 4 hours straight in Slack or recruit their friends into another Twitter argument.

It's practically never about time, but rather about energy. People need some downtime from work and chores and "improving themselves", and BS arguments on Slack or Twitter is a way to unwind for some.

> will actually be a more anti-social move than not.

Anti-social is the whole point. Because, precisely, society has been hijacked by consumerism.

It's nothing new, it started with the industrial revolution. Now that (almost) everyone has a fridge, a TV, a car, a washing-machine, a computer, a phone, attention is being siphoned in order to generate revenue.

> Of course this ideological view of society is long gone so there's just no sense trying to push back. Accept that today's child is a highly connected, distracted, techno-proficient being and let that be that.

I think "attention economy" should be treated as a threat and, on the contrary, mercilessly fought against (with education, and not just kids). Because it damage people's mind just like the industry damaged the environment. Don't make the same mistake twice.

> Of course this ideological view of society is long gone so there's just no sense trying to push back

It's only gone in ultra dense cities, as soon as we leave our techno bubbles the old world comes back real fast.

> Accept that today's child is a highly connected, distracted, techno-proficient being and let that be that.

I don't think you have to be that fatalist to be honest. When I see two years old kids already holding phones in their stroller, while the mom/dad is pushing the stroller with one hand and looking at the phone they hold in their other hand I feel like we went too far.

You can teach kid to use tech as a tool to navigate the world, but the vast majority of gadgets and services are pure distraction that are designed to trigger addiction mechanisms and milk your attention/time/money. I'd rather teach my kids how to become a master of google maps or how to use an app that let you navigate the night sky and its stars/galaxies than put them on fortnite and tiktok, I don't think these things exist on the same plane. I don't think people fully grasp how important the first decade of a child's brain formation is.

Self reported loneliness and teenager suicides have never been so high so I kinda cringe when I hear people saying restricting kids access to internet/tech will make them more disconnected and anti-social. A very large part of internet interactions are shallow and fabricated, they can't replace real world relationships in any way, shape or form.

I agree in some capacity that cutting out all these things would be very hard and probably damaging in some way, but embracing them completely without any restrictions is, imho, much worse

>To be a social being in the 21st century is largely about navigating these platforms

No, you aren't navigating the platforms, the platforms are configuring you so to speak as to work as just another input/output or relay, which is obvious in the language you're using here: 'connectivy'. (that's how we talk about switches and routers). As Baudrillard pointed out in his piece 'The Ecstasy of Communication', being a sort of input at some terminal and endless exchange of meaningless symbols isn't socialisation, it's the opposite. It's the destruction of the social through mass communication. It's like some sort of morbid dance that has no actual meaning at all, people mechanically switching tinder results back and forth to optimise an algorithm that makes that process easier in an endless feedback loop.

I wager the sexual success of most young men does not hinge on their social media read/write frequency.

You haven’t been paying attention. Look into “thirst traps”.

And what's there?

I wouldn’t be sure — being off social media is seen as a red flag these days among young people, esp on dating sites, where linking your Instagram / Snapchat in your profile is considered par for the course. This is obviously satire but there is truth to it too: https://youtu.be/GEWnXmDfVZg

What if, hypothetically speaking, we knew that this is a sickness on the species-scale? Would you still say accept — and thus - succumb to it? I am not unconvinced that we have let these platforms go too far with our kids and minds; to the point where they have become cancers in our societies.

>Of course this ideological view of society is long gone so there's just no sense trying to push back.

I mean, the amish and mormons exist, and their birth rate is quite healthy.