I recall, when I was a kid the games were extremely addictive for me and I couldn't just quit playing unless I absolutely have to. I had emotionally very similar experience when quitting smoking, the feeling that if I just can have this one more smoke I will be satisfied and live happily thereafter is very similar to the desire to have one more round.

So I wouldn't call games "not addictive". If anything, watching something on TV is often less adictive because you are told a story with its introduction, climax and ending(up until the Netflix ruined everything with it's endless shovelware).

IMHO, the key is moderation. A day with diverse activities is a day well spent, kid or adult.

Today, if I play Sid Meier's Civilization, a day or two would be completely gone and I will be disconnected from the reality and I will need to re-adapt to the real world. I suspect, excessive gamings primary risk is developing unhealthy understanding of the world in the area where the game simulates the real thing.

What about neither TV or computer games and doing things outside like fishing, hiking, scouts, riding bikes etc ?

This always gets discussed whenever gaming or screen time comes up.

Kids below a certain age can't do this stuff on their own anymore in a lot of places. Your neighbors will call child protective services on you.

This leads to kids being raised indoors, or only in enrolled events, because parents can't spend all of their time outdoors with the kid.

Then when the kid is old enough to be outdoors on their own without supervision they don't want to be because they have been raised indoors.

So let them call? Letting your children roam unattended is not child abuse, especially if the child is old enough to reasonably keep themselves safe.

> Letting your children roam unattended is not child abuse

I'd check your local laws around this. I know people in my city have been investigated for Child Neglect for letting their 7 year old walk to the mailbox alone.

Yes, that's how insane we've become about kids.

I lived in a state that actually does consider it neglect, legally, if you let your <10 year old child roam alone.

Check your local laws, because having child protective services called on you is not a good time.

Explain that to the cops and Child Protective Services.

I absolutely would. It sickens me how our society seems hellbent on making sure everyone is anxious and fearful of everything, all of the time. If people do not stand up and push back, this sort of government paternalism just keeps intruding. I'd fight any charges against me to the supreme court if necessary, and I'd hope they'd set a precedent.

If you feel so much passion, whats stopping you now? You dont need kids to fight injustice. Stand up! Push back!

I think there is something to do with agency. Look at the video games kids are playing, like minecraft. They are building homes, changing the environment to suit their needs, stockpiling resources, linearly levelling up, etc. It's a lot more enticing than being told what to do every day in scouts or marching up that same tired old trail you are already bored to death of, or seeing your skills plateau in sports. Plus there aren't even many adults doing these things anymore to pass on to their kids. Hard to become a teenage fisherman when you don't have a family member to teach you to tie a lure or what bait is good for where, or have a spare rod you can use, and have no money to buy a rod since you aren't working yet, and have no way to even get to somewhere to get a rod or even get to a fishing hole without your parents making time to shuttle you about. Hard to play catch when your dad doesn't own a glove to toss with you.

Sure but not everyone has access to these all the time. When I was a kid, I used to live in a smaller town on the river Danube and I did my fair share of biking and fishing. Those are definitely great activities that everyone who can should do but watching TV and playing video games is also nice. The more options you have the luckier you are.

Disagree with this categorization, unless one lives in Chernobyl there is always something to do outdoors solo or with a party. Using your body as it was designed to be physically active is naturally good for the body and the mind

Come to Istanbul or any 5M-10M+ city. Anything outdoors is hours away for the most, so it's a special occasion and cannot be a daily activity. Those who have access, they use it. Most don't have access.

Europe tends to be on the better side of the things because the cities are not gargantuous. Amerikan suburbs thanks to the early driving age probably situated fine too but I hear that helicopter parenting is widespread in the USA, so maybe they have the opportunity but don't use it?

Are you asking seriously? How about bad weather, or that part of the day when you've already done those things?

I remember riding my bike through the rain and hitting puddles full speed and doing skids on wet grass and absolutely loving it. I also remember we used to go catch and observe certain insects and frogs that would only be seen in the rain.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just bad weather can be an opportunity for children too. What about doing art? Lego ? Even cooking something fun?

Recently my friends kids were going mad because they wanted to jump on the trampoline but she wouldn’t let them because it was raining. I really couldn’t see the logic behind it. I’d just let them go for it.

If they’ve been outside doing stuff all day I can’t see how they’d need more stimulus, maybe a bit of TV / relaxation is good for them ?

The comments seemed framed as if it was TV or games, that’s all.

Trampoline in the rain is a lot of fun, We could say trampoline in the rain is dangerous but they pretty dangerous any weather conditions.

Agree with you in general, but trampolines are pretty dangerous regardless of the weather and maybe not a great unsupervised activity.

For some of us 'bad weather' is good weather, and vice versa. Especially so for children- who doesn't like the uplifting feeling brought by rain?

Freezing rain isn't uplifting.

Way too dangerous! Injury, skin cancer, pedophiles, drugs, terrorists, need I go on?

It's sad I can't tell if this is sarcasm

What about coyotes running around drawing tunnels! Take caution!

Borrowing shovelware. This is gold Jerry!

That's a somewhat popular term already. It was especially useful in the days of shareware/careware and close-source freeware distributed largely on CD or dial-up BBSes. You'd buy a CD with 650 MB of content, and depending on the publisher it might be 1/4 or 9/10 just crap.

Today they're built to be even more addictive to push for monetization by ads / in app purchases

I.e. the problem isn't video games, it's ads, greed, and lazy parenting.

It's not that hard to find good games. Even our moms managed to know Nintendo. We were annoyed that every video game was a "Nintendo" to our moms, but thinking back on it, that meant mom walks into game store and asks for Nintendo, can't go wrong there.

that just sounds like ADHD. the ADHD brain craves stimulation and games are a pretty easy place to find it. Modern life is kinda boring, especially if you grow up in a US suburb.

My addiction to video games led me to software development.

Addiction is a peculiar thing. Anything that makes you feel good is inherently addictive. People get addicted to biting their fingernails.

Is it bad to be addicted to reading? Or working out? If gaming is making your synapses fire faster, if for nothing more than to increase your IQ score (which is based on speed), is it a bad addiction?

Addiction is a compulsion to do something you would not chose to do. It really depends on that something whether it's good or bad for you. Addiction is something everyone will have to deal with at some point in life. Learning it from gaming is probably not a bad thing.

Not every addict makes something out of their addiction but every addict gives a lot of their potential away, often their health too.

A lot of people become software developers without being addicted to games. Great software developers bring things on the table that they learned doing stuff that is not software development, gaming is one of those but people are capable to do so many great things.

Nerding over something is cool but when it becomes an addiction, it's dangerous.

Right. I would begin to see addiction to gaming as a potential problem at the threshold where it interferes with other aspects of one's life. For as much as I loved gaming as a kid, it never posed a problem. I still played sports and finished schoolwork. Probably it overtook some potential social time, but I also lived in a pretty isolated area, so w/e.

It's funny, because people put a premium on creativity and inspiration for their children, but that level of engagement is indistinguishable from that of addiction to gaming. Even without gaming in the picture, it's not uncommon for parents to get leery at the prospect of their kids spending all their time on books or a musical instrument.

They want to see a balance according to their preferred level of allocation to every activity, but still see savant-like engagement. It's absurd. Geniuses are geniuses because they go into the deep end. You can make the case that it might be possible to manipulate the environment to the extent that obsessive engagement will likely follow one path over another, but ultimately it's not up to you, and I don't see one as objectively more important than another.

> IQ score (which is based on speed)

IQ tests are not based on speed?

Nintendo games on a console that don’t need an internet connection or include advertising. These have been the best combination for our kids where they have fun but aren’t addicted and can easily put them down.

The moment games include advertising they optimize for all the wrong things. I won’t let my kids get free games on iPad, etc for this reason alone.

Not a parent but if I was, I would absolutely get them a Switch over an Xbox/PS5. While games can be hit and miss on XB/PS, Nintendo seems to really have their shit together when it comes to releasing consistent high quality games with no shenanigans.

The downside is the games never go on sale so you aren't getting any deals but the upside is that you can give your kid just about any Nintendo game and not worry about shenanigans around loot boxes, ads and other crap they stick inside games now.

My daughter is transitioning from children's games to pre-teen games, and I can't find a single acceptable game on the tablet.

Until now I hadn't realized how sensible Apple's rules around children's games had been, notably: no internet connection required, and no ads.

> single acceptable game on the tablet. ( iPad )

I was trying to game on my brother's iPad (M1 chip) and realised that iPad even though powerful are absolutely trash when it comes to the free video gaming market. Filled to the brim with advertisement, slot machines, lootboxes, paid powerups to levelup. Only acceptable games were paid like Minecraft, terraria, Limbo etc. But they cost too much on the iPad. I won't advise strangers on how to raise kids but a steam deck ( if its available in your region ) with parental settings on has a huge list of games which go on sale very often or Nintendo switch would be a great option for kids to play.

I tried so hard to find good free games on my brother's ipad but I realised, thats not what an iPad is good for. Its Excellent for video content consumption, reading, surfing web but not gaming period. I remember a time when there were lots of beautiful video games on my nexus tablet but the switch to freemium model has completely turned the mobile market into a dumpster fire.

Regardless of ads or Internet connectivity requirements, I can find hardly any acceptable games on phones/tablets, in mobile app stores. If you want to play games on the go, I suggest a proper videogame console, like a 3DS.

I agree, and thanks for the advice. However, as another commenter pointed out, I believe the lack of good games in mobile app stores is a direct consequence of the economic model, driven by ads and internet connectivity.

Plug for Stavros K's site: No-bullshit games! https://nobsgames.stavros.io/

Thank you!

Seems good. But in theory, also monopolistic behavior. Through the same logic, they could mandate a certain political leaning as well

Have a look at Apple Arcade.

Agreed. The constant dopamine hit with sounds and flashing colors set a horrible precedence. It's bad enough television advertisements hit all the right spots, now video games are a minefield their selves.

Games are designed to be addictive, so restraint is a good option. So is television, though, so limiting both is a good policy. I would guess that games' interactivity and personalization lead to much more opportunities for deeper addiction, though (see e.g loot boxes.)

Limiting both is a good policy, but understanding the different games is also an important aspect here. When my kids were in elementary school I encouraged them to play Minecraft and I played with them. I didn't prevent them from playing Clash of Clans because so many of their friends were playing, but I made sure they understood how incentives were structured and how the game was designed around that.

That was ten years ago, and I still don't know if I struck the right balance. Parenting is hard. If you have young kids today it's a good idea to understand what games are popular and what their business models are.

>Games are designed to be addictive

It depends strongly on kind of game, and especially on the business model involved. Gacha games, free-to-play, and similar models are very much optimised around addictiveness. Personally I've found that story-based finite games, i.e. the ones you play through and then you've experienced it, are much better in those respects. Unfortunately those seem to become much more rare these days.

> i.e. the ones you play through and then you've experienced it, are much better in those respects.

This has not been my experience at all. It's very easy for me to play a few rounds of rocket league and keep my daily game time to under an hour. When I play stuff like Zelda BOTW though, I have to use the parental controls on myself or else I'll spend half of my day on it.

Short-term addictive, long-term harmless. Like traditional media.

In my observation, the platform matters. The iPad has a noticeable negative impact on my kids mood in ~15 minutes, and I’ve observed similar behavior with other tablets and other kids.

The PlayStation doesn’t seem to do that, although my son gets in trouble more often when it’s time to end because there is a higher level of effort to get out. But it doesn’t seem to zombify him.

I think BOTW, while it has a beginning and ending, is much more open than some other games where you're on a structured path.

However I think it speaks that everyone has a different approach and solution to how they play games. It then becomes interesting to see what they play and how they limit their self.

Are old games designed to be addictive? The original NES and Sega games? Like Mario Bros, etc? I think more recent games added the addictive components

Old games were designed similarly to arcade games, where the "true" goal was to get you to keep inserting coins. Then there was kind of a slow transition away from that, but they still relied heavily on the player spending a lot of time replaying prior levels to get to the harder (final) ones due to the limited amount of content.

IMO it was addictive, but only to certain personality types. Mine is definitely one of them. Others would see a difficulty spike and/or the amount of re-treading they need to do to make progress as a deterrent.

Recent games are more addictive in a way that appeals more widely.

Id disagree that console games were the same as arcade. Arcade often had gimmicks that _required_ more quarters, whereas console encouraged mastery (e.g. learning boss patterns, level layouts, etc). Very few console games would need a game genie to beat, but many arcade games are near impossible with a single quarter.

In reality for certain personalities (myself included) that focus on mastery is actually the addictive bit, and I think its a productive addiction all things considered. Im not addicted to the mind-numbing aspect of playing, I'm addicted to the huge amount of knowledge I need to gain in order to succeed. Its the same reason I was drawn to DOTA and Magic later in life.

A single quarter? Perhaps, though every arcade had a few wizards that, through mastery of the game and its mechanics, could play for much longer on much less money. I couldn't tell you how many were literally impossible on a single play, though I don't see the distinction as particularly important. In both cases, the idea is clearly to have the player continuously retrying, getting more and more skilled, and going further and further. They both absolutely encouraged mastery.

They may not be as refined, or they may not have been mistaken at what qualities were addictive, but they were designed to be addictive.

Of course, the incentives were also a little different. Old arcade, for example, games wanted you to drop in more quarters. So they had to find ways to make you lose. But not just lose, lose when you're just close enough to the next level.

I don't think they were intentionally, but some people can get addicted.

One more level

Just after this boss

I think single player games now are just as addictive as they were then. Especially when you look at indie games (Shovel Knight, Death's Door etc).

The moment interaction with other players happens is when I feel a higher bump in addiction can happen. Loot boxes, seeing a cool skin etc.

whats the difference between fun and addictive?

Some games are addictive and some television is garbage. You have to be picky with both. Older Disney films had some great music, animation, and morals. Good video games make you think or build reflexes.

If I had a kid they'd have a laptop running Linux with all the open source games (and some of the older Nintendo ones on emulators) and probably a collection of older films on DVD.

Yeah. We only let them play offline games that aren't gotcha. The current playlist is Journey, Zelda, Mario, Tunic, Death's Door.

> To me, it’s pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when gaming, and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look like zombies.

Are you not just seeing what you want to see? Maybe from your wife's perspective, the kids are carefully to observing and learning a wide range of human emotions, social dynamics, new idioms and music from Disney+, whereas in their games they're learning a few tricks that they repeat ad nauseam to get some trivial rewards from their digital Skinner boxes?

Amen, my preschooler got a lot out of watching (quality) shows, learning about conflict resolution, expressing & communicating, and so on. Learning to relate with complex emotions that characters were experiencing was a big cognitive milestone.

Some games are incredibly addictive though. Roblox for example can completely take over a kid’s mind.

Yeah surprised no one else here mentioned Roblox, they seem to be flying under a lot of people's radar but they're a completely terrible company.

It’s the only thing I have permanently banned and blocked inside and (as well as I can) outside my home.

> I think my wife’s biggest hang up with games is that she was always told that they rot your brain

People used to say that about TV too.

I always feel a bit personally attacked when people claim videogames are just bad for you full stop. I'm really passionate about games, I grew up playing NES, and just never stopped. I almost always have a new game waiting to play for when I'm finished with what I'm currently playing.

Sample size of one, but I don't think my brain is rotten. I have a pretty successful career in software, I have a close partner, I have a social life. I have other hobbies too, but it's my main one.

Don't get me wrong, I know my gaming takes time away from other stuff I could/should be doing, like building side projects or getting enough exercise. But TV does the same, so in a choice between the two I pick gaming any day

As others have said, highly dependent on the game. My kids playing minecraft together on the TV? I have no trouble at all with that. Them sitting, like zombies, playing shovelware android games? I am likely to shout at them to go out and play when that happens.

Minecraft together on the TV? Single screen co-op mode? What platform is that on?

Games and Watching Videos are two different dopamine rewards systems, but both are still dopamine rewards systems. I encourage my kid for games more than watching youtube or doing anything less challenging. However, I still worry about when the stubbornness of leaving the games appear.

One rule I made to myself is simply don't encourage anything just for dopamine rewards. I try to mix things with effort, contemplation, or interaction. Doing something like this specific rule: No more than 1h playing Minecraft alone. If you want to keep playing, ask Dad, Mom, or your cousins to play together; the same for Watching videos.

games are such a personal experience that is simply much easier to talk about them at length. i also think that even if you are very blackpilled about the dark patterns at work in many modern games, it is still very easy to appreciate the value of something like the logical journey of the zoombinis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eePTsHpp1eI, sam and max: hit the road https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yWnnk9fyJE, or the zachtronics games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o99hbZy8CuE&list=PLdg60-Uktz...

in what may be somewhat more of a hot take, i would argue that there is an incredible amount of educational value to be found even within the most meritless garbage games as they are still fundamentally systems to be dissected and solved and learning the maximally efficient way to do something worthless is a skillset that transfers quite handily to the valuable things in life. also unlike tv, games have a lot of potential to be immensely collaborative [or competitive] and social. some of my fondest childhood memories were going to my friend's house and co-oping diablo with one of us controlling the mouse and the other controlling the keyboard. there are many far less ad-hoc ways for kids to share games and even singleplayer is a highly rewarding shared experience.

Very very honestly, my experience with people who watch Disney too much is much much better then with excessive gamers. Only one of those groups yells, swears and is vent their anger at people around when they loose the match.

For the record, my kids do play games, I never did complete ban. But, the gaming does not seem to be superior, does not zombify them less nor leads to more inventive play after session finished.

Because competitive games are a cesspit. Even games with highly competitive PvE aspects have this problem (MMOs, most notably). Ironically, those are also the games which allow for the highest time investment for the common player. Mostly because everyone is online and anonymous, which subsequently keeps their filters from activating.

By comparison, I've never had a local game of Mario Party remotely as heated as the average experience in a competitive, online game. Not even after Chance Time did the unthinkable.

The downsides of Disney are a little more subtle, too.

The one thing everyone who plays a competitive game has in common is wishing they played less. Part of it is definitely self selection, people who aren't competitive never start playing these games

You might as well lambast sports on the conceit that kids might swear and get angry for losing.

Not the same. Sports have refs, coaches, and parents. Yes it is possible to get a bad outcome in sports but there is no container in competitive online gaming. It is Lord of the Flies by design.

Gamers have their clans too and people can get kicked from that. You can get mic banned or worse too for being too flagrant. You can lose real money if microsoft bans you and you had a bunch of digital games for example. In sports its not like all the interactions are going to be moderated either. Sports are pretty notorious for talking crap about the opposition, but it can get much worse than just talking crap. I heard a lot of terrible racist things too during my time in high school sports just 10 years ago, from players and parents. There are a lot of nasty people out there and they perpetuate those views on their kids.

> no container in competitive online gaming.

Actually in competitive scenarios, e.g. tournaments, there are. Add to the fact ranked play is generally better behaved.

Speaking of parents, from my experience playing hockey, they are usually the worst offenders. Yelling at not just the refs, but the kids too. I've seen intimidation in more than one occasion.

At any rate, concern over the prospect of kids being "angry" is a weak take.

You think these eight-year-olds are playing video games in tournaments?

As someone who coaches elementary school sports players, I can tell instantly the ones who play online competitive video games and those who don’t. Sample size is maybe only ~40 kids, but I’m convinced.

Maybe it improves behavior later but the ones who do are initially the worst sports I’ve seen in my life. I have to spend time before every practice and game reiterating stuff like “it’s not ok to pretend to teabag the other players”.

I’ll agree parents have changed a lot since I played. I think the poor example they set influences this generation of parents.

I am not concerned over them feeling angry. I am concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating younger siblings or other family member after playing. If that does not happen, fine. But when it does happen, younger sibling or grandma are more entitled to not be target of aggression then someone else of gaming.

The exactly same way as with adults - whether they feel angry does not matter. Whether they demand everyone else to tip toe around them after/during playing, whether they loudly swear or hit the table with fists does matter.

> I am concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating younger siblings or other family member after playing.

This is happening at home, presumably where it's the parent's place to discipline.

So? Yes, parent has power to punish the kid or yell at it. That power does not make parent happy about situation.

If observed more then once, the parent will conclude exactly what you see in this thread.

So it's irrational to signal out gaming on the whole.

If I had seen people act the same way in sport or other activity I would. Which actually also happen in real life, when some club or sport becomes source of bad peer pressure, many parents wont allow kids to participate.

The problem is that games are very addictive so in extreme cases they can destroy much more thoroughly than TV can.

Tell that to my son's anime addiction. It's worse than his gaming addiction ever was.

How old is he and what is he watching? (if you don't mind)

13, and tons of anime. Naruto, Sword Art Online, One Piece, Full Metal Alchemist, and now Seven Deadly Sins.

This article seems to be saying the opposite, can you share any references?

Just my memory but eg gaming cafes have resulted in numerous deaths from exhaustion (World of Warcraft) while I cannot recall the same ever happening at a soap opera cafe (does this exist?) or sports bar.

I definitely feel games have made me more intelligent, but at the cost of my attention span and work ethic.

Also can we talk about the hoarding instinct that develops? I always max out my inventory, ie my basement. Just in case I need to craft or sell something, which I almost never do.

Why are you trying to fight over what is the best for your kids?

Both have obvious benefits: Grimm Brothers tales are still culturally relevant for a reason, even if you can probably find useless brain fodder on Disney+; and video games can totally teach some stuff to your kids.

Just let them choose what they want I guess?

I agree. My 4 year old loves Fortnite.

Reasoning through combat strategy, even in the age-inappropriate context of gun battles, exercises higher level thinking that clearly remains off when watching Ryan’s world.

To be fair, the article does say watching videos had a positive effect as well.

The people handwringing about combat games have obviously never played them and their complaints reflect that. War is brutal, violence is terrible, and when you hear that there is some army game where you shoot people, you naturally think thats terrible, and I don't blame them for thinking that from their gut. But its nothing like the experience of being in an army and shooting people and dealing with that of course. You are playing capture the flag or something like that; team deathmatches are kinda like a basketball game racking up as much points as you can in the time period. No one actually dies, they respawn in five seconds and try again. Its basically just a game of electronic dodge ball or tag, or even basketball if you squint. campaign shooting games feel like those carnival shooting games with the flashing lights and point values for different targets, especially games like call of duty where its just march through the campaign and rack up points for different levels.

That's all they really are when you remove the theming and look at the actual mechanics of the game. the mechanics aren't screwed up or morally bankrupt or anything like that, they are the same games we've always played of racking up points or moving an object across a playing field or something like that. It's probably the reason why the fps formula is so successful, it plays almost like the games we already like kinda like basketball (with deathmatch) or football/soccer (with capture the flag or assault style gamemodes moving some object offensively or defending as a team).

Why not neither?

Sometimes my kids want to relax too.

They spend a decent amount of the week doing after school clubs/sports - so sometimes they fancy an hour of playing Mariokart or wii sports or something - I prefer that because then we can join in as well.

(Otherwise they love watching Ninjago - which tbf I don't mind that much!)

I don't know about you, but sometimes it's really nice to distract the kids while you relax.

Forget relaxing - sometimes it's nice to distract the kids so I can, say, cook dinner without them literally hanging off my legs.

I can't even go to the bathroom in peace. How do you guys manage time for yourself??

Hang in there. Your kids will require less supervision as they grow older. But also the stakes are higher as the potential for emotional turmoil and property damage increase.

I mostly don't.

I get a few hours after they're in bed and before I go to bed in which to cram cleanup, catching up with my wife, and other bits of essential life maintenance.

It does get easier as they age. Our youngest is three, so I have a while before the "hanging off my legs" phase is done, but I can remember the era of newborns, when I could be interrupted at any moment, and I couldn't count on an entire hour to myself at any point during the day or night.

(FWIW, a big part of making this work is shifting your mindset to appreciate the little things and recognize how precious they actually are. At this point I cherish being woken up by a wailing toddler and rocking her back to sleep, because I know I won't get many more moments in my life when she's a tiny little bundle snuggled up and cozy against my chest, and it's truly magical when I manage not to be hung up on anger over being woken up at 3 AM.)

You have about 1,000 weekends with your kids before they are legally adults. My children are mostly grown up now (18 and 14) and, despite the sleepless nights, I miss having them fall asleep in my arms and their absolute wonder of the world as infants and toddlers.

It's all over far too soon. Make the most of it!

Thanks for this. I really like that 1,000 weekends number - it's a clear, concrete reminder of the finite time I get with my kids.

I appreciate the perspective. I kind of agree with you however my ideas slightly changed over the last year. It is hard to keep spending as much time as possible with kids when you are also trying to make a living and prepare for a better future for them. I think a balanced approach is better for your mental health and also for their future.

Easy, you dont!

- Parent of a 2,4,6, and 8 year old

Why can't the kids play among themselves? I have two little daughters, ages 3 and 5 and I've never had to drop them in front of something. If I have time to play with them I do (which is most days) but when I don't have time or I'm very tired or I need to do something else I tell them to play among themselves.

Telling them to go play has diminishing returns as they get older.

My kids are 18 and 14, and I've done my best to encourage creating things instead of consuming things.. but sometimes they need some down-time, and so do I.

That's great. Keep doing this as much as you can. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to spend much time with their kids, so if you do, don't squander the opportunity.

It's going to be harder to keep these boundaries as your daughters grow older and their natural personalities develop. They'll likely take interest in whatever their friends and social peers are doing, and the two of them may go off in wildly different directions. Stay engaged and be ready to adjust your parenting techniques as the girls grow older.

I've found that doing that just makes it worse - they both have very strong personalities, so it ends up in war rather than letting me cook for 10 mins!

The places I’ve seen people plop devices in front of their kids has mostly been places you’d prefer it if kids weren’t running around.

Nothing is better than the 10% of the time that siblings get along. The problem is that 90% of the time they actually are fighting with each other and its way more frustrating to deal with as you repeat the same exact arguments you've made every single day for the past 2 years.

What if you only have one child?

Then congratulations you already know how to create his proposed solution.

Haha.

But seriously, additional children come with their own pros and cons. Plus, of course, there's the thing about wanting more than one child.