Or maybe they are just angry at you for taking away their fun toy.

Previous generations had moral panics about novels and then comic books. Parents were warned to not let their kids become "book-worms" (aka reading addicts).

A more useful question would have been "does your child react similarly to any other toys?"

I've come to think the principle of charity is a useful one to apply in arguments, especially online. It's possible you're correct – but that would likely require that the original poster has utterly ignored the evidence of their senses to focus on electronic devices exclusively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Only one data point, but my daughter (who's 8) does.

If she's tired, it could be the iPad, Lego, a TV show, a book or anything else - when we tell her it's time to stop using it, she'll have a strop for a few minutes before calming down.

When she's not tired, she'll just as happily put down the iPad as anything else.

The only big difference I see between iPad/computer use and most other toys is that it's easier to be sucked in to spending hours on it if no one intervenes - but I believe that's mostly down to the simple fact that they can do more than one thing.

She'll happily spend half an hour or more playing with her dolls, or reading a book or whatever. But she'd rarely go several hours on any one of them. Eventually she'll get bored and go and do something else. With iPads/computers, when she gets bored with one game she can just switch to another game.

My children react this way to precisely three things in their life: TV, iPads, the stuffed toys they've decided they "need" to go to sleep. Everything else they seem to pick up on a whim and only react badly when the other tries to tear it from their hands - yet 2 minutes later and they've forgotten that toy and moved on to the next.

Electronics, however, they're glued to from the second they get their hands on them until they're eventually taken from them because something else must take priority - such as bed time, school or some family engagement (i.e. meal times are always taken together as a family - electronics free).

I find also that their interaction with electronics seem to evoke an attitude of entitlement to do whatever they want. For example, when bed time rolls around, if they've had electronics leading up to bed time, all hell breaks loose when bedtime is announced... despite 30 minute, 15 minute and 5 minute warnings ahead of the call for bed. When the electronics are removed so they can begin the bed time routine, they both have full fledged tantrums which don't happen if they're curbed from having any electronics or TV and if we spend time say reading with them or letting them play independently away from electronics. It's the same if we need to leave the house to go get groceries or visit relatives.

> the original poster has utterly ignored the evidence of their senses to focus on electronic devices exclusively.

I think given the pervasiveness of electronics and their popularity with youth, this is decently probable.

I'm reminded of the "sugar causes hyperactivity" hysteria, which also required parents to ignore the evidence in favour of targeting something that was seen as culturally low value.

http://www.essentialmums.co.nz/family-life/health-nutrition/...

Some of the research seems to suggest that parent's beliefs about what causes behaviour are self-rienforcing.

> It's possible you're correct – but that would likely require that the original poster has utterly ignored the evidence of their senses to focus on electronic devices exclusively.

Which is possible when we consider just how strong the effects of bias are.

Yes, it occurred to me I did overstate my case slightly. I ought to have said there are two possibilities:

1. They're right, or 2. There is a very strong bias causing them to ignore their senses

And the OP should have enquired which is the case. I think either is possible, while I edged too strongly towards the former.

Having two kids under 10, my observations are identical to yours. We have experimented with strict limits to screentime and less strict. Each time we have tried the less strict approach the behaviour of our kids has changed for the worse. At one point we noticed the only thing our son would do was wait for the daily screentime - he was disinterested in all other activities - at which point we reduced the allowed time considerably. We are now at 1 hour per day, max, and it seems to be ok. Small children seem to be drawn to the games like moths to a flame. The problem is not that they would be damaged by the gaming itself. Rather the problem is how it affects their psychology when not playing on an ipad.

Interesting. I tried a different approach: no limits, except for normal daytime activities (e.g. normal sleep time). The result was what I wished for: eventually things stabilized. Yes, we went through several 2-3 day binges, when our kid would be completely immersed, but eventually she always got bored and seeked other activities (especially social & involving movement). After those extended screentime periods, devices would always get cast aside and used sparingly. So, it seems that at least some kids at some ages are able to maintain a reasonable balance all by themselves.

I don't know if this can hold (she's almost 6 now), but so far I'm very happy with the results.

I'm glad that strategy worked out for you. We might try it again at some point. But, evidence so far has shown that our children do not get of bored of playing on the IPad. At all. We could reduce the number of games available on the device, that might help. Also, the fact that the device has Netflix might be a part of the allure - when one digital activity becomes boring, they switch to another.

Thank you for you comment, I realize perhaps the device itself is not the problem but the number of available content.

Oh, I am not trying to imply that the same approach will work for everyone, in fact I suspect it will stop working for us once our child grows older. But I wanted to provide an interesting datapoint.

I believe it also have something to do with gender, boys are more susceptible to computers/screens/games per my observation.

> What I've seen with my kids (under 10) is when they get an hour of phone or tablet, after they have to give it up again, they become very aggressive and behave in a manner which is comparable to someone with a chemical addiction

This has nothing to do with addiction and everything to do with parental education. You will get the same kind of reaction if you take away a toy that a child is currently having fun with, regardless of whether it's a tablet or not (I bet our parents were having similar concerns decades ago when they turned off the TV on us).

A simple talk such as "You can play with it again tomorrow but if you act like this again when I take it away, they you will never get to play with it again" did wonder with my kids.

I wonder if imposing a minimum time spent on other activities (e.g., bike riding, jumping on a trampoline, swimming, board games, reading) would be a better and less "controlling" method than imposing a maximum time spent with gadgets? I suppose, though, that this probably wouldn't solve the problem with their aggression when switching "spaces", unless perhaps they found another activity that they loved as much or more than their gadgets.

I'm not a parent and so I'm really not in a position to speak on this, but it seems plausible to me that the aggression is a byproduct less of transitioning from one space to another and more of having complete control in the digital world vs. having zero control in the real world. They might be lashing out because the digital device gives them the experience, however short and shallow, of basically being you -- being in control of most details of what's going on in your universe. If that's true, one approach might be to find a way to make them feel like they have more power and impact in the real world, without of course actually giving them too much control beyond their ability to wield.

> What I've seen with my kids (under 10) is when they get an hour of phone or tablet, after they have to give it up again, they become very aggressive and behave in a manner which is comparable to someone with a chemical addiction.

My kid does that too. She also flips and starts screaming if you try to cut up her food instead of letting her try to eat pizza with a fork. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Well. My kid started throwing chairs when it was time to do something else than play on the computer. He does not usually do that. I would suggest contexts vary. As a parent I'm not as concerned that the games would somehow "eat their brains". I'm more concerned about the noticeable negative long term effects too much screen time have on their behaviour. Whatever the underpinning psychological and longterm effects may be I mostly become annoyed at the poor behaviour. Social dynamics vary, of course. With our children too much screen time means more scream time.

My observations are identical. The longer you let them on it, the worse their behaviour is when you take it away. After not letting them have it for a few days, they stop asking for it... and then one day you let them have it back and the whole cycle begins again.

Now my kids are mostly banned from iPads and other electronic gadgets - I allow them enough exposure to familiarize themselves with how to use them if and when they need to and maybe watch the odd TV show on Netflix and that's all.

I understand the attachment it causes, as a computer programmer, it's uncomfortable when someone tells me I cannot have my computer for the weekend. I have to remind myself constantly that this technological wonder I spend 8 hours a day in front of isn't what life is about. Life is what happens when you shut off the computer and go and live it - which is odd, because I can quite happily go camping and leave all my gadgets at home and live primitively for weeks at a time, no cell phone, no computer, no electricity, no running water. Somehow my brain separates the electronic life as part of our culture, which has somehow forgotten how to live without all this technology at our fingertips.

I guess what I want for my kids is that they don't form this mental dependency on technology. That they realize it's just a tool to enhance their own natural abilities, which I'm sorry to say, many kids just don't appear to be learning while they're stuck in front of their screens every waking moment.

I find it curious that society views mind-altering drugs as highly dangerous, yet doesn't see the same risks associated with purely behavioral addictive cycles. There are many ways to trap a human animal in a dopamine loop, and at some level it's hard to distinguish a deep MMO habit from a heroin addiction.

The genie is out of the bottle: there are more superstimuli [1] in the world than ever. What's most frightening is that even if you create the perfect household dynamic, kids' expectations will be shifted based on what their peers experience. At some level, a tradeoff is made between a healthy relationship with technology, and not ostracizing a child from their peers. There is an age past which it is social death to not have a Facebook account or your own phone, and it keeps shrinking.

When I have kids, part of my strategy will be to have as many intrinsic limitations as possible: for instance, they can spend all the time they like with a non-networked Raspberry Pi, or an offline eBook reader, or a tablet that does nothing besides Wikipedia. I also like the idea of a single family computer in a shared/public space, and time limits will be as much about balance between family members as about trying to enforce healthy habits, at least in the cognitive framing.

But, like most people who don't have kids yet, I'm sure I'm mostly talking out of my ass. :)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus

i also find attractive the idea of cultivating the 'maker' & 'tinkerer' in a kid. why? Like for the 70s-80s born generation i recognize the 'need' to understand the underlying 'structure' up to a point where it may sparkle interest in or not. Legos, mechanical tinkering, household tinkering, entry level electronics, modeling etc. did the same for us imho.

Of course, has to be balanced with other things like arts, sports etc. I don't think anyone is capable of correctly identifying the 'calls' of one's kid unless you see their reactions. If that reaction is biased because the kid sees your passion into something a parent is doing, than be it. (s)he will try to overcome the master in an appropriate setup.

I've noticed the same with my kids BUT I've also noticed similar behavior with other activities (like when being asked to come in from the yard before their play has completed) and that tells be not to be too much worried.

Interesting. I have a two year old and he will often get my 3DS down and play Zelda for 5-10 minutes. He puts it down after that and show none of the behavior you observe. He may just be too young to have a long enough attention span to care. However- he gets very angry when he has to come inside- the longer he is allowed to play outside, the more angry he gets.

I read recently, maybe even on HN, an article suggesting that children under [i forget, 3? 5?] should not be exposed to 2d screens at all, because their neural model of the physical world is still in development. Food for thought.

Instead they should spend their life drawing on paper with crayons?

I'm not sure I hold this suggestion in that high a regard. It's odd that some of the most highly intelligent people around enjoy consumption of 2 dimensional art forms - graphic novels, comics, xkcd. So I'm not entirely sure that I can see how 2D screens would affect their abilities... and honestly, I didn't even make it out of 1 dimension. Comics never really did it for me. I never really graduated from regular words on a page, maybe a couple of pictures or diagrams thrown in :P

That said, there are some great educational shows on TV that I don't mind them watching every waking moment if they decide they want to (How It's Made, Mythbusters etc.) It's the mindless rubbish (and the advertising!!) that seems to cast a spell on them that I object to.

I've read some stuff about that, but haven't seen any strong evidence. My wife and I try to expose our son to a wide variety of experiences. If there is any strong research about this, I would certainly like to review it.

You know what, I act exactly the same way when distracted while being on internet (for example, writing this comment).

Could it be that they are aggressive not because of the context switch but the fact that you are forcing it on them? I know I sure as hell hated when my parents told me to stop playing video games but had no problem quitting while I was in the middle of playing if something more interesting was happening like my friends showing up at my house.

How about you when you were a kid? Did you have any limit regarding computer usage? I did not, but I know that I would have learnt way less if I had had.

But granted, computers were not consumers-only devices. I wouldnt give my kids consumer-grade devices anyway, because they only see one side of computing, which is really sad.

Probably when we were kids our devices weren't connected to a low latency world wide network. I did have access to a BBS but the funny thing was that most of them were single line, if I didn't get off the phone, I couldn't get a response to a message I sent.

I know my mental productivity was much higher with an air-gapped computer. Once the network leaks onto every device, we start blovating on forum boards instead of thinking deeply. ;)

I've noticed this, even at older ages. My early teen son turns into a downright asshole if he's online and then told (with ample warning) that it's time for dinner. Without the device, he's extremely pleasant.

I can still remember this sort of situation when I was a teenager playing CounterStrike every day. For one thing, my mom would give me "ample warning" but without checking that I was paying attention to her first. When your focus is 100% on a game it's easy to not notice and even to answer without noticing what was said to you. Basically say whatever would make her go away the fastest and then get back to the game. Then when dinner truly was ready and she interrupted me abruptly, it was frustrating because I never got (in my head) proper notification. Often I would actually not remember her giving me a heads up, it was that small a blip in my focus. She called it selective hearing.

I think those of us who spend a lot of time online/on devices project our consciousness into the machine and it takes more effort to context switch out of that. So we get angry when we're torn out without the chance to context switch at our own pace. For what it's worth, I get the same way when I'm deep into reading a book so I wouldn't project this problem on only high technology.

It would be nice if there was a good way to queue up requests for someone's next context switch (end of CS round, as a trivial example).

> My early teen son turns into a downright asshole

My brother (who is a wonderful person now), was just a "downright asshole" at that age along many dimensions, not just when pulled out of gaming. ;)

Placed in the same circumstances, most adult would not react much better. That is not to say there is not something about childhood that might explain the behavior, but I would avoid immediately jumping to that explanation. It's much too convenient, and has been, is still, being abused in the way we treat teenagers (see the pg essays in which he talks of kids and suburbs -- don't remember which one it was).

While I have seem similar behavior in my son, but I believe that it was more caused by his prefrontal cortex [1] taking many years to fully develop.

As an aside, I have found that meditating with my son as a young child was beneficial to his development and social control.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

> there's something I need to watch closely and control,

I humbly suggest you teach them self control. It's usually better to set an example rather than set the rules.

> despite the fact that it's great to have my kids silently occupied and leaving me to get stuff done.

Television is a drug parents give their children when the parents need to relax. - Unknown

>> there's something I need to watch closely and control,

>I humbly suggest you teach them self control. It's usually better to set an example rather than set the rules.

I humbly suggest you attempt teaching self control to four year olds and then come back with that comment. Children are not small adults. Their brains are different. That's why you need parents, to tell the child what to do and what not, set the boundaries and so forth.

I did.

They are.

They're not.

Role models.

Chuck Moore's book was enticing for many reasons (I miss the artwork in my orig copy). No error/exception handling was one. People of all ages must push the boundaries.

I was sincere in my use of humbly. Sarcasm has no place here.

Oh, sorry, my comment was out of line then and perhaps reflected my own frustrations as a parent. If you've managed to teach such small children not to spend all theit time with a tablet without explicit enforced time limits then I raise my hat to you. Children are different though...

>>> I humbly suggest you attempt

>> I did

> If you've managed to teach

I attempted by using enforced time limits. I did not succeed.

My child became addicted. I discovered him sprawled out unconscious like a junkie, with dead batteries littering the floor like so many used syringes, and knew he'd managed to obtain a hand held unit from somewhere.

Other comments made light of addiction, yet it's very real for some people. The slingshot response to control, overindulgence, seems to be common. Success stories about alcohol, drugs, pornography, and other adult subjects usually involve teaching self discipline early on with things such as sweets.

Try not to get too frustrated. The challenges of parenting don't last much more than three, maybe four decades.

There was an article a few weeks ago about a chinese kid executing his parents for taking away his games. I read it and thought this kid sounds more like a junky than a kid.

If you've ever know anyone that does hard drugs the most dangerous time to be around them is when the stupefying effects wear off.