from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1479-5868-10-102
There is more research if one is willing to look. Obviously context matters and screen time of HN parent teaching kid how to code and explore is different than screen time of a child that is given an ipad and left alone.
But
You are probably familiar with how child brain develops. And screen provide tiny amount and much much less complex information than the real world no matter how complicated software you run.
Interacting with 3d objects, reacting to micro expressions and complex emotions of people gives much richer environment for brain to find patterns in and learn. You can give 6 year old kid who never had screen access a computer and it will figure it out faster than you think it could. But if the same 6-10 year old never played any sports or had interactions with other children - that's going to take a while, possibly even never fully getting there.
Of course balance is always the answer but it's worth noting that difference.
Maybe there will be all sorts of terrible long term effects that won’t manifest for years. But my kids are clearly doing much better than I did in every measurable way.
I grew up a neurotic mess in a broken home. My examples of fatherhood were 80s sitcoms. I’m just making it all up as I go along. Not going to fret about screens until I see a problem.
That may be true in general, but I think what matters is that a screen provides much larger, richer and more complex information and experience than just about any other individual object in the physical world. Nothing in nature (with the possible exception of faces) comes within an order of magnitude to the "experience density" of a smartphone running even relatively trivial software like a picture gallery or a scrollable list of songs. I wouldn't discount the impact of this on a brain of a 1-3 y.o. It's a superstimulus.
Children pay attention to very small details. When they are looking at a plant with a spiderweb, they are looking at individual leaves, how the web connects to the plant, the spider, its movement, anything in the web, the colors, how it reacts to the wind, not to mention the 3d-ness of it all. Then they touch things and see how they react, training their fingers, hands, arms and rest of the body to make the exact movement they want, coordinating it with what the eyes see and what the skin feels.
A photo gallery in a smartphone is extremely dull in comparison, and that's why they can learn to use it immediately.
They do. All your examples are correct, for the first few encounters. Then they bucket these things as "leaves", "spiderwebs", etc. and stop caring. Complex does not mean interesting (see also my parallel reply here: [0]).
> A photo gallery in a smartphone is extremely dull in comparison
No, it isn't. Not only the photos in the gallery are likely to be complex, with each showing a slice of the real world, they're also likely to be varied - each one may show a completely different situation, scene, context. And they're unpredictable, surprising.
The one constant of the natural world is that what you see now is roughly the same as what you saw a second ago, or a minute ago. There's only so much of the world around you, it's persistent, and except in emergency situations, stable. Kids learn to tune it out very quickly[1]. Meanwhile, smartphones are those magic rectangles filled with varied, unpredictable, immediate reactions to input.
> and that's why they can learn to use it immediately.
Kids are smart and much more persistent than adults at figuring things out, meanwhile UX designers are assuming users are drooling idiots and designing interfaces that are more trivial than those on Fischer Price toys. It's a perfect storm, so no surprise little kids figure smartphones out very quickly.
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29113029
[1] - Not being able to would be debilitating.
> There's only so much of the world around you, it's persistent, and except in emergency situations, stable. Kids learn to tune it out very quickly
Kids know very little about the world, so everything is new, amazing and umpredictable. Some rock or stairs to jump from, throwing a paper plane a thousand times, playing the sand building something for hours.
With pictures, at least when they are young, they usually want to see the same ones over and over again, and mostly of people they know, but I guess there are kids that like a bit more variety.
I think the reason they can learn to use it immediately is that it's super-simple to learn - tap and swipe, and not very many of those gestures at that. Phone interfaces now are designed to be used by /anyone/ - and that means keeping them simple enough that it can be learned quickly by a child.
I got one of the first digital cameras of anyone that I knew. It was early enough that people were kind of shocked to see it.
One of the things that I noticed very early on is that JPG files that were generated from pictures outside were significantly larger than JPG files that were generated from pictures inside. At the time I took this to mean that the outdoor pictures were much less compressible because the level of detail in the natural world is much larger than anything indoors. It's a world of subtle details that we literally evolved to sense.
I just don't think looking at pictures on a screen can compare to the experience of physically going to places.
This is the reason I chose to write "experience density" and not "complexity" in my previous comment. A tree may be infinitely complex, and the first tree you see is profoundly interesting. But the tenth tree you see is just a tree. Soon after, you don't even notice them anymore, except in situations when you have a reason to care, or you see a tree that is very different from all the trees you usually see.
You're correct on the JPG size difference between indoor and outdoor shots. But just because something is too complex to compress well, doesn't mean it's interesting.
I think it brings up another point though. Does interesting have intrinsic value?
I believe the 20th century was a time period where the western world had to learn to live in a world with infinite sugar, fat and salt. Our nature is to gorge on these naturally rare resources when we find them.
I believe the 21st century will force humans to live in a world of infinite information. Again, our nature is to gorge ourselves on things we find interesting. Is watching YouTube videos you’re interested in any better than eating sugar? Time will tell but my initial reaction is that it is just as unhealthy.
For example, I love history. YouTube will happily feed me an infinite array of little factoids about history. I’ve seen so many that I will then see the same one come up on my feed again and think, “ooh that sounds interesting” and then I remember watching it previously and can’t remember a single thing about it. Was it really that interesting then? Or was I just wasting time mindlessly binge watching videos?
"Screen time use may have detrimental effects on children’s health and development" to me associates with having witnessed (too many times) parents hand their child a tablet with some simple game or a video in order to free themselves for a conversation or another activity, rather than a parent teaching their kid programming. I wonder whether it's not the 'screen' itself, but the type of activity normally accompanying it. (And the sacrificed of other required complex activities, like you mentioned)
Just like it's really challenging to bring a second language to the level of the mother tongue, and even then one mostly dreams in the native language (citation needed), I wonder if learning programming from young age will open one to a more "fluent" understanding.
seems highly dubious when there is an entire economy that sprung out of people who were exposed to computers at an early age.
I had the advantage of a few family members already involved with computers, but I remember learning about colour depth with some ridiculous dinosaur game, about bootdisks so I could play Commander Keen, and how not to install X-Wing (don't ask). The act of using the computer was inextricable from learning about how it worked, and that knowledge could be immediately reemployed in more interesting use. I know a west-coast-style guy who works in a brewery and lives for Ultimate Frisbee, but he also understands scripting better than any non-tech person I know because in his youth he was seriously into Diablo 2 and its bot scene.
Contrast this to the modern iPad. No edges to cut yourself on, no seams to pry up, no tacit understanding gained, and the big draw being the meta-TV of YouTube...
Not entire teams of people scheming addictive manipulation with slot-machine payout rates tuned to precise dopamine chemistries and social networking pressures using models that have been tuned and proven to be frighteningly effective over two decades of experimentation.
I played a machine zone game, thankfully only lost about 60 bucks on that crap between me and my GF, and by then I became wise to what they were doing, and shocked on all the levels of manipulation they were using for what is essentially a nag game that strongly rewards bullying for those people that pay to win.
The history of these games goes back at least to the mid2000s (anyone remember Civony/Evony and "Come Play My Lord" Ads? Those are basically the same game as Machine Zone). They've been honing the various mechanisms (false advertising about what the game entails, grooming whale players, addictive gameplay) using mechanics from civilization, tamagochi, and whatever else works.
Children's mobile games show a shocking amount of manipulative mechanics for the "free with ads" tier which for 90% of people (you know, the ones that aren't rich) will be what they use.
Then again, this is the world they will be living in, so exposure to the manipulation may be good for them in limited doses, but "adult supervision" is more needed than ever.
Modernity presents the superstimuli parent is referring to but removes all the interesting paths into the machine, the better to shear us. If the gameplay was reading O'Reilly books and the lootboxes were full of code snippets, it'd be one thing, but that's not what's happening.
- "Go watch TV" (don't bother me)
- "There is pizza in the freezer"
My guess would be, that their parents experienced the same lack of love in their childhood.
There is [1] - a study where MRI was used to measure the myelination in young children's brains, comparing high screen time and low screen time kids. It was a small study and relied on self-reporting by parents, but there's a physically measurable affect.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/04/132071/screen-ti...
> when is it appropriate to introduce kids to a computer at all.
I've decided on this: The computer is a tool. As soon as they could use a hammer, or a computer, or a match safely - and demonstrate that they know - then they could use them. My two daughters never got the hammer, my son got it at 5. And he knows why we call it the "thumb seeker".
The "computer" tool I allow for _creating_ content at about 3 to 5, I don't remember exactly. They were all able to create content (or write in VIM, yes, VIM) by 5 I think. And they were able to stop when I tell them to... So I generally didn't have to tell them to.
The "computer" tool I allow for _consuming_ content started at about 8 or 9 I think for the girls, when they demonstrated - and continue to demonstrate - that they can occupy themselves without the computer and that they can stop when asked. The stopping when asked was already reinforced in them from the _creation_ of content. My son, unfortunately, is allowed by his mother to consume far too much content and he has not developed the limits that his older sisters have. And I'm having a very hard time getting him away from it, especially as she encourages it!
But sometimes I can persuade him with the hammer, some new nails, and some nice scraps of planks! He's already built a cage for the rabbit (with his father's help of course).
Wow. I spy a future life of them writing high-karma answers in vim.stackexchange.com. Much like playing a musical instrument, I feel that the only way to really master that tool is to starting using it insanely young. It might cause a hell of a shock when they go to school and get indoctrinated^H taught painfully and slowly how to edit "a document" using Microsoft Word, however...
Side story: my dad was a professional pilot, and if you replace "vim" with "IFR flight and approach planning", you get something of a similar ancedote with my life. He had an early flight simulation tool or two on a Macintosh LC, with a throttle quadrant, rudder, and yoke he built himself. I have many happy memories of trying to practice, e.g. carrier landings in an F/16 simulator, as a really quite small child. For my sixth birthday he took me up in a Piper Cherokee with a friend who was also a flight instructor, and I held straight and level flight and the long final. The colleague of his, sitting next to me, couldn't believe what the hell he was looking at. A lot of these things are just learnt fine motor skills and if you have a compliant and, above all, interested child, they pick them up very quickly. (My classmates didn't believe me – I had to wait until the photos he took on a film SLR were developed!)
> I held straight and level flight
What is bad is when the computer/tablet/phone becomes a pacifier that parents park their kids in front of. Better to give them actual toys that they will grow out of, rather than a screen that they won't.
I know this is true, but why is it true? We have a 4 month old, she gets very nearly zero screen time, but on the rare occasion I have her on my lap for a few minutes during a meeting, playing a game, or video chatting with overseas family/friends, she is enamored and, yes, pacified. What precisely is the harm in that vs "a toy they will grow out of?"
I will also add I had what I have long considered it a privilege that I had been introduced to computers at a very young age, as well as the internet (for better or (probably mostly?) worse).
Intuitively, that doesn't look healthy to me, I don't need to look at data to know that. Especially because it's not a reaction that he has to anything else (no other thing, even things he likes a lot, sucks his attention that much... breastfeeding gets close but even when breastfeeding he's less of a zombie than in front of a screen, he does play with things using his hand, foot, etc.) so it doesn't feel normal. And I find it very sad to see kids who spend hours a day in that state instead of interacting with the world, playing, etc.
At 4 months old it's not so obvious because they interact less in general and don't have a lot of obvious states beyond "crying" and "not crying", but check his reactions to the screen when she gets a little older and you will see.
So relaxed (or very activated)? Generally what people think of when they say "like they're on drugs" are just normal states that they disapprove of because it suits the narrative. In this case, the narrative is "screen time is bad". That means it is suitable to condemn it by making a parallel with something destructive, to make it feel like it has some association (which it neither physically nor mentally has been proven to have).
We have some casual acquaintance we visited two or three times. Their then-4yo was constantly on an iPad on YouTube Kids, switching videos every 20 seconds. Just watching him was infuriating. You had rather innocent or mundane videos of e.g. model trains driving around, but before you could start to pay attention to any details or any kind of narrative, he'd switch to a video of kids in a swimming pool full of orbeez, then something Sesame-street-like. And they just let him keep doing that since he'd throw a tantrum if they take away the iPad. They have to let him watch that stuff at the table, otherwise he wouldn't eat. Fast forward to last year, he got into elementary school and was absolutely unable to pay attention to anything. Teachers made him see doctors, he's on medication now, but that was half a year ago so no idea how things are going today.
Now I'm sure someone will pull the "are we sure we got cause and effect right here?" card, but even if that kid had some kind of predisposition, nobody can tell me that just putting up with the kid's tantrums when he was still four (or whatever age he started at, this was just when I first saw this) and taking away the iPad, going outside more would not have significantly improved the outcome here.
Wether enough scientific fact has been gathered to understand the inner workings and circumstances are irrevelant, the cognitive weight of TV exist as a matter of fact.
Now there are of course difference between TV and monitor and screen time. What causes the problems are TV like stuff - passive, movie-ish information. Drawing lines in paint or typing buttons to see them appear on notepad is definetly another thing - the information flow and actions there are controlled by the kid and there is another huge difference if the parent is there explaining. Not the monitor itself is the problem, but the absolutely overwhelming quantities of raw information which designed specifically to catch and hold an adults attention. Kids simply have no means to absorb or escape it.
On my experience kids over 4-6 years starts to absorb some of the information and kids over 8 can sit through a disney movie with sufferable consequences.
She describes everything, she learns stuff, and even tell me about the game afterwards by herself (she is 3). The major problem is that she does not realize when she is bored or tired. To be fair, that's a problem with many activities, but boredom with toys is way more evident (she would just step away), while with videogames she would just get incredibly demanding (I can't do this, I can't do that, this is scary, changes level, even though it's stuff she has already done). She also chooses and replays the same levels to discover more (and she does!)
If the kid reads/solves and then behaves normally, then it is different.
I have observed, as many other parents have as well, that if the kids spend too much time in front of the screen (> 20 minutes, give or take), they become resistant, moodier, and worse behaved. This is not true if we're playing a board game or having reading time. So, I think a bit of moderation is important.
Incidentally, since having kids, I've also noticed that I am short-tempered if I spend too much time in front of the screen, a good reminder to take a walk a few times during the day.
2.) What you said is purely ridiculous. The "tamptrums should never happen" is wishful thinking. It is a goal to produce adult that don't throws tamptrums.
3.) Kids behavior is in fact heavily dependent on environment. Half of classroom management and child raising is literally all about that.
4.) Even many adults rage when gaming and after. Evan adults are irritable and annoyed after gaming.
This is not true and is extremely unrealistic thinking.
Also: some traits of your children's personality form very young, regardless of your style of parenting. Your influence is strong of course, but some things are just due to the way your kid is wired. You can set an example, and be firm about bad behavior, but some shit is going to happen anyway, tantrums included, depending on the personality of your children.
And to hell who said you get used to the smell. Second kid and I still breathe with my mouth during the diaper change.
Our family however grew up with TV from early age and we do not have the zombie trait.
Yes, exactly. Screens are extremely addictive to kids. (Adults too, I suppose, but that's their own responsibility.)
No, wrong. What can be addictive is the content displayed by the screen and the eventual interaction that the kid have with this content.
Put a kid in front of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viOkh9al0xM (`This is the Train Driver's/engineers/operator/conductors view from the Bergen Line and the Famous Flåm Railway in Norway in Northern Europe.`), and start a 30s countdown: the kid will have left the screen before, guaranteed.
The screen itself is addictive. Content can vary, but as long as it's not just a block color without sound or movement, many kids will find themselves glued to it.
My two 8/10y old boys won't. Great, there's two data point now, we can plot a trend!
> The screen itself is addictive.
Is a switched off screen addictive too?
If your answer is along 'of course not, I just said that content can vary, use your brain, fill in the gaps geez', then that was exactly my point to the GP: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content.
You were generalizing, I showed you an instance were what you said didn't hold; and I know more cases. You bet that train videos were boring to kids and I proved you wrong in the general case.
> Is a switched off screen addictive too?
This question is absurd. A switched off screen is, for all intents and purposes, not a screen.
My argument is that my kid and many others are instantly attracted to screens as long as they show motion and sound, and that it doesn't have to be a children's cartoon or song.
Switched on screens remain powerful attractors for many children.
The GP was!
> I'm sorry, I can't agree with your point.
At least we're getting somewhere!
gp: Screens are extremely addictive to kids
me: wrong, any kid will not like train video
you: wrong, mine is, the screen itself is addictive.
me: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content, or are switched off screens intrinsically addictive?
you: this is absurd, a switch off screen is not a screen, let me rephrase for you: switched on screens remain powerful attractors for many children
Next round is where we agree that, actually, its the content showed on a switched on screen that can or cannot trigger attraction for a child: yours is ok with trains, mines are not.
But I'll stop here, that was fun, but I've got some other things to handle.
You can use screen positively: the kid is able to describe back what is being seen, something reasonable is going on.
I'm not saying it's negative. I usually bond with my daughter over things we watch together. It can be sometimes hard to unglue her from the screen, but I have some tactics that sometimes work (we don't watch TV or screens over dinner, so if she's hungry she has to turn it off. I can also convince her to turn it off if I go play with her, something that I also enjoy!).
We do however one thing. She is allowed to get off the table when she wants, but if she does we take away her plate because she is done. We are a bit "elastic" on this because sometimes she gets down to grab something and goes back, or her brother is really distracting. However if she goes to the tv the plate is gone immediately (there is an informatory call before she reaches the tv "i see you are done with the food. Are you full?").
That has been working well. When she actually gets up she is done with food.
It is also a great signal to figure out when she is constipated. She would almost skip 1 or 2 meals, then eat a lot once she is done.
If you put the kid in front of tablet without fun stuff, the kid will get bored quickly.
And even if you put games there, games are not created equals. Some games make them happy, engaged and they stop playing them fairly easy. Other games makes them grumpy, angry and they will act out when you want them to end.
It can be videos of cartoons of course, but also videos of trains, trucks, animals, sometimes she finds a programming-related conference I'm watching interesting (less interesting than a cartoon, but interesting enough to pay attention).
She is not in trance like other parents described, she actually describes to me everything she does (which turns frustrating when you are focused). She also shuts the game down "after 1 level", when asked. Or immediately if necessary (we don't want to use that card, we want to respect her time).
I think there is a big difference in the type of videogame. She has the best hand-eye coordination of her class (games are played with a controller) and she developed concepts like "background vs foreground", as well as aiming and an enormous amount of other things.
That being said, after a certain amount of time, she will get unsettled. If she doesn't move away by herself, you have to remind her. What I think I see is "unrecognized boredom". She doesn't realize that yet, although she is getting better (I saw her pause and go do something else more than once lately).
Finally, I play videogames with her. That has been amazing so far, I'm glad we did.
All of this to say: toys gets boring way faster, but it's also easier to detect boredom. Creative toys do help, that's basically why duplo/wooden train/magnets are the top 3.
I play with her and we have to buy new toys mainly because I get bored to play always with them (keep in mind that we talk about many, many sessions). Given that, yeah, I can see her getting bored faster. Videogames have way more content and variation.
Do remember that paper, glue and colors are very cheap and can create a lot of stuff though!
It does matter what the screen does and what plays on it. If you use it to chat with family or play youtube videos targeted at adults (like crafts or lectures), the kid will get bored quite quickly. If you put there teletubbies or kiddy game, the kid will watch for long.
If you pack tablet with only drawing software and selected kiddy games, you will have good experience. If you put there games addictive to kids or games that stresses them, you will have bad experience. If you put there too difficult games, the kid will have no use for it.
It really depends a lot on which software/games/activities you choose and how you setup house rules. And at this age, you have all the control.
I do agree a tablet and the TV are similar in this regard.
We grew with mine with a screen always on (work from home). We watch animes during lunch or as background when doing boring work. We play videogames, so more exposure.
Point is, unless there is relevant content, she won't look at the screen (3 years old).
We skip all the videos for kids (we do have occasional movies), but those videos with songs made me want to smash the screen, she just turns braindead.
I wonder if all it's needed is a parent observing behavior and evolution of behavior to determine each activity's health based on a kid-by-kid basis, rather than generalizing.
Also, you can change this behavior. It is crucial that you build a positive relationship with him and pull him out from the screen and into your life. Not sure how old your son is, but try setting aside a day or half a day where you both leave your phones and spend the time talking or doing an activity together.
On the other hand, I did find that the more time you give your child playing with toys uninterrupted, the more their attention span for that improves.
The world has changed both with our roles are parents and the environment which we exist in. My 2 year old would quite happily be able to order food via an unavoidable touch screen interface at a fast food restaurant!
Now.. to get him started with vim.
Perhaps, though I’m not sure if there is a specific or well-defined reasonable minimum age. I was typing code blocks from the Commodore 64 user manual into the machine itself while learning to read — literally while still young enough to enjoy the The Very Hungry Caterpillar picture book — and yet this did not exclude the desire to also play with the various physical toys my parents got me.
Our child used to see me and his mother working/playing and was always interested. We'd launch OpenOffice, maximize the window, select a huge font, and let him mash the keys from the age of 2+.
He'd amuse himself making characters appear, and we let him do this whenever he asked to "work on the puter". When he was three/four he'd start typing his name, our names, and the few words he knew how to spell. At some point he started using backspace/delete appropriately, and he seems to have learned that the mouse can be used to move the typing-point once the screen is full.
I've no specific plans to force more on him, but when he gets to five I might explain a bit more what is happening, or show him some simple online flash-like games. (Obviously not flash these days ..)
Ten minutes of typing/playing though? After a few hours outdoors every day isn't gonna do any harm though.
to adults too!
I don't know how I jumped the gap between reading text and writing code.
I have very distinct memories from an early age of trying having to need to compare two numbers, no problem. And then comparing three, no problem. Comparing four, no problem either. Soon realizing one can compare any number of numbers but there was an issue comparing (and ultimately sorting) an arbitrary number of numbers. Which lead me to come up with my own silly bubblesort. During that time I remember pondering about concepts like code generation using code etc.
Just sharing some memories I can remember. My point is, probably never too early to introduce your children to computing. As long as they have an intellectual attitude towards it.
I think it's fine providing they're getting all the other fun creative IRL stuff too :)
Yes. Yes, do delay that as much as possible. This is a good thing. Strive to keep your kids off the screen. While acknowledging that screens now own the world.
Speaking personally, I let my son use my old iTablet starting at 3.5 years. I gave him his own tablet a few months before his recent 6th birthday. Good decision? Bad decision? We shall see when his generation assumes the Mantle of Control.
Regardless, I do not judge parents for their decisions with respect to this. It is a brave new world, and we are pioneers.
But I find the first contact to a computer through a shell awesome. Text is what constitutes a usable computer, zeroes and ones don't yet.
No matter what age, maybe after primary school may be fully sufficient.
So it's never too early to introduce them to learning these things.
When's it's too early for social media and entertainment? Well, I'm middle-aged and I still don't think I can be trusted to use it responsibly, so.
Also, the child gets bored fast if nothing happens, which is obviously ok, peaked what could learn.
https://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/what_is_logo/logo_p...
https://turtle360.net/ seemed pretty good.
Scratch also does:
Logo: 1967
Scratch: 2007
Apple App Store: 2008
(source: Wikipedia)
The behavior looks a lot like stimulant withdrawal. There's an extreme irritability, tiredness, and seeking and pleading behavior. They look exactly like I do when I get crazy notions of quitting caffeine.
I think it's the combination of interactivity and direct interface. Having objects respond to your touch feels like magic. It's sort of like the delight of going to a petting zoo that never has to get turned off. And the critters on the screen don't just sit there when you yell "move, pony, move!" They actually move at your command, diligently and flawlessly.
When we consider that regular toddler misbehavior and temper tantrums stem from their inability to communicate effectively to be able to express their feelings and desires and have agency in the world, the sudden appearance of an object like the iPad, providing them perfect agency, must feel like an amazing power trip. The path to addiction seems pretty clear.
I think where standard video games don't have quite the same effect is the hand-eye coordination aspect. There's a disconnect between the input modality and the action on the screen. There is a metaphor that has to be learned. There are precise timings that have to be muscle-memorized to keep Mario from falling down a whole. It's difficult and that's why the game is fun, mastering the difficulty is rewarding. But it also slows the child down and keeps them from mainlining the dopamine hit.
So my wife and I have a basic rule of thumb: if we ourselves wouldn't sit down to consume a particular piece of media--be it because it's too boring or simplistic or patronizing for our adult tastes--that's a pretty good signal that it's probably designed to be addictive to toddlers. We then don't let the kids have it. They get to have Friday Night Movie (which we would do ourselves) and Saturday Morning Cartoons (which is just Netflix, because we don't have broadcast TV). During the week, we play card games like Uno, or do arts and crafts, for entertainment. As long as we're doing that, they don't even bring TV, video games, iPads, etc. up.
Which is why it pisses me off so much that our kindergarten gave the kids Google Chrome Tablets with educational "games" for "homework". The first 3 months, the kids' homework was basic stuff like "draw a picture of your favorite thing" or "practice reading for 10 minutes". But this month, the entire schedule is "do this one app on the tablet". And in less than a week, we're already seeing the impact. Our oldest doesn't want to do anything but use his school-provided tablet. AAARGH! It makes me so angry I could just do something really stupid, like running for school board.
All of this to say, you should account for the "experience factor". If the game is too easy for you with 0 experience, that's a bad signal, however if it's too easy because you have experience, the experience factor must be excluded. A stupid example could be making paper planes. I get bored fast nowdays, but that's because I built and colored millions of them as kids. My daughter struggles to fold the paper properly though, so that activity can't count as "boring".
Same goes for movies. If I would rewatch the movie, she can watch it too. Beauty of this is that I can pleasantly sit close to her when she watches it and I don't want to pull my eyeballs off.
Although, I am an avid terminal user and former emacs fanboy, I don't understand the appeal of a command line in this case. It seems, that it is rather a shortcoming of UI that you have to switch to cli to achieve a maximum productivity in development work. There is Logo, there is Scratch, there are some other nice apps for iPads + guided access to teach kids about underlying of computing. CLI seems like a very opinionated way of doing things, rather than exposing underlying structure.