Technically, the jury is still out on this. I don't think anyone's done any kind of study of how childhood YouTube brainrot affects their long term outlook during adulthood, simply because YouTube brainrot is too new. For what it's worth, if I had to bet money, I'd agree with you that "socialized, bonded, explored, etc." is better than YouTube, but I don't think this has been proven yet. It's just a gut feeling.
There are definitely many benefits to socialization outside, but let’s not forget the tradeoffs. Mental health can be repaired (I.e. ozempic for the mind?), permanent injuries - much less so.
(I picked an extreme example to prove a point, I’m not suggesting the risks of playing outside today are equivalent. But the risks are real nonetheless)
In Ukraine they are / will be for many years.
Compare that to the sheltered, all-wishes-granted and no minute spent w/o distractions like social media, kids. Started with Gen Z who get all angsty, with panic attacks, when they have to start performing, i.e., during final exams and the like. And never learned to deal with emotions and free-floating thoughts, handling themself, keeping calm.
(all observed from multiple coworkers being parents, some had to bring their offspring to psychiatric therapy - of course, driven, as taking public transport on their own would be too much!)
Due to our normal childhood, we could handle situations later in life where today's offspring inevitably fails.
How do you know what risks are stupid and unnecessary?
Kids spent a lot of time outside getting hurt for almost all of human history, and "ruin" wasn't something anyone worried about.
The gooses thing was memory of my grandmother. It is not some kind of distant medieval history, it was the norm around WWII.
I brought up "human history" as the logical extreme of the counter argument, not to argue that's the goal.
The problem with that logical extreme is that kids died a lot by our standards. They also had no protection against abuse. You had more of them due to non existent anticonception, which made their "value" go down.
- The parent who grew up in the <more rugged years> self-identify as a tough rugrat who had fun and was fearless; not a wuzz like those modern kids (“kids” here excludes their own)
- But the parent would rather that their kids be safe than to have to pain themselves worrying about them constantly
This seems a difficult ask, but it's possible and probably very healthy for all involved.
Youth criminality, alcoholism rates, teenage pregnancies are down and that is a good thing.
Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote:
> When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
I wonder what the equivalent is for knowing how to be the perfect parent until becoming one yourself.
Easier said than done if it is your kids taking risks, but kids and parents need room to learn and grow.
I don’t worry at all about my 8yo boy however, as he’s very cautious and risk averse. My 6yo girl though already scares me to death with the stuff she does when she slips out of sight. I can’t wait for the teenage years! <sarcasm>
During all of this ordeal, I thought the issue was that I went in the forest and got dirty. The "disappeared for a long time" and the "holding and using a rusty machete" did not register as issues.
Goold luck with your daughter, it did not become better for my parents until I was...Until they stopped knowing what I did. And just as you they were unprepared because my older brother is mostly into being alive and safe.
It seems obvious there is a direct link between environment and behavior, but what he started doing was like "programming the environment" in order to trigger behavior changes.
Why would we litter if the trashcan is nearby ? Why would we go out of our way with cables if power-socket is on every table ?
The same way I wonder if we cannot "program" the environment for kids, in a way that allows us to let them get bored out, but in such a situation that is not dangerous but also productively interesting for the kids.
It is not the same to get bored out outside nearby a train track or in the industrial area, than in a somewhat controlled area ?
What do we want to expose them to ? We already know it might want to try crazy stuff ; but I guess we can reduce the danger factors and increase area for more interesting activities ? Also, this is all linked to age and I'm not sure we can make generic rules.
Growing up in a farm is much different than growing up in the streets, and ultimately, my parents and I think a lot of parents, decide to live where kids are safe to grow with somewhat nice activities and people around them.
(Note that I also met a couple that completely cut themselves from the world and they really had to come back to society when the kid came to age, just because a kid requires social interactions with people it's age)
Yes, you find out your kid was throwing stuff off bridges or being a vile bully, you come down like a pile of bricks.
But that doesn’t mean a full safety-rail environment. That means kids will jump off high places and break into others and we slap them on the wrist and carry on. That means lots of broken bones and the very occasional tragedy. Because a whole generation prone to mental illness and incapable of autonomy is infinitely worse. I think we’ve learned that by now.
What happened / happens? I've always wondered.
I guess the rock gets crushed?
What about trams, where the rails are instead submerged in a "crack" in the ground?
We did dumpster diving too and playing with fire :-)
But harder to list the benefits learnt, because they are often subconcious.
Sorry, but we had been living like that for ages before helicopter parents became the norm. Kids didn't die in the streets by the truckload, or jump off of roofs to their doom any any number to statistically matter, as this alarmist comment implies.
Even into my 30s I used to wake up in a panic remembering all the situations where I’ve almost died because I was just a little bored.
It sounds like the nostalgia in the comments here are akin to “I was poor, so you’re going to know what it’s like being poor too”.
You forgot school shooters exist.
Large portions of globe functions with fights at school that don't escalate to death or injury with a weapon.
We had fights, they could be brutal, the social mechanics allowed a needle to be threaded which myself and a number of others largely managed to do; stand your ground, don't engage physically, don't run .. if someone calls you out and starts smack talking, don't rise, just reply and confound. If they take a swing dodge it and don't respond, if it lands, suck it up and don't respond - in the rung climbing of high school and elsewhere this makes the other look a fool.
There were lessons learned from that and I can still my grandchildren benefitting from phyical encounters (not just fights, engagement with big waves, steep hills, solid animals, bicycles and motorbikes) that can hurt but largely don't kill them.
IMHO, a lot of these analyses suffer from survivorship bias; the ones who died don't get to tell you it was a bad idea.
-Playing in storm drains. Inside the narrow tunnels I might add.
-Abandoned construction sites.
-Railway tracks. Putting things o the rails waiting for the train to see what happened. Everything from rocks to toys to coins.
-Dumpster diving in large dumpsters. There was a soap factory near us and wed dive for schampoo or hairgel.
-Jumping in the biohazard pond looking for frogs eggs.
-Throwing things off bridges.
-Climbing various constructions, houses and dubios trees.
-Competing in who could jump from the highest roof.
Kids not only could get hurt. We did. Legs were broken. No one died fortunately.
Bored kids outside is not really as romantic as many would have it. Not arguing against boredom, constant stimuli is not healthy.
That being said, unsupervised bored kids can lead to some very dangerous outcomes.