2) I used that phrase out of habit. I meant the physical world as opposed to the virtual world. But even though they're both "real", there are very important differences.
3) Yeah, I probably would have.
4) The fact that there is no official clear purpose for downvoting implies it's up to the community to decide. Which is actually a really cool social experiment on their end, but in practice it's just utterly stupid, and I'm really sick of it.
Responses to your responses:
1 and 2) I guess I'm trying to say that maybe the differences do not matter as much as you think they do. The virtual world is encroaching on the physical world more and more, but in the same way, our lives are sliding into the virtual just as much. Not only does this seem to be inevitable to me, but it also seems like a positive development.
3) I would certainly be a different person! I don't think we can really know which approach was better, but I know that I am enjoying life as I am. I fear that less freedom as a child would have turned me into a bitter, broken adult.
5) It is a cool social experiment! I'm not sick of it though :-)
I might not respond again for a while. There is work to be done!
(edited for formatting)
Not surprising, given the # of downvotes I'm getting on here all the time.
Perhaps it's time I break up with HN.
I second this, I find sdegutis's comments to be very useful, if only to provide a fresh (and entirely valid) perspective. Contrast is so so needed in our community...
The result of downvoting is not simply a karma thing. It actually effects visibility of comments. Downvoted comments do not get any discussion.
Therefore, writing a comment that gets downvoted is a one-way communication channel. There's no benefit in it for me when there is no discussion.
My time is too precious to give away for free. Your time is too precious to waste reading downvoted comments.
So it's in everyone's best interest for people who don't share popular opinion to stop commenting.
That includes me.
I'm saving my downvotes for those who are rude or insulting to others.
1. State your disagreement and justify it with religious reasons. Good luck avoiding downvotes.
2. State your disagreement without justifying your reasoning. This comes across as over-assuming and somewhat rude. Also, many people recognize your username and fill in the blanks.
For you, the only way to win is not to play.
Please do stick around. I do not downvote things I disagree with, not if they're written in the measured and sensible manner that you do it. Many people on HN are like that. Instead they will reply (as they have done here in this thread) with polite replies explaining their own viewpoints.
The only reason to leave is if you actually don't care about reading those.
I find that deeply disturbing.
Your choice to ban a fun relaxing game because your children enjoyed it is as weird to me as people who ban rock music because SATANIC SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES or people who ban Elvis Presley because JUNGLE MUSIC or the Scottish cult who banned calculators not because they wanted to improve mental math but because SATAN TALKS TO YOU THROUGH SCREENS.
Children have obsessions - see lists of dinosaurs for one example. And of course they're competive - "zx spectrum is much better than vic 20". It's probably a good idea to remind them that they're not infallible and to encourage a few other interests.
But, your children your choice, I guess.
My problem isn't so much that digital devices can't be used creatively (we know they can), just that they are too easy for kids to slip into deep passive consumption modes (like say TV).
Instead of blocking off the computer entirely, why don't you instead limit what they can do on it? No, or very limited website access; very few AAA-type games, more sandbox-type games, etc.
Yes, we impose our values on them. I call that "responsible parenting".
And maybe when many disagree with a post it would actually promote this post because it would be good for discussion.
This means I can spend all my spare time playing with my kids or reading books.
With computers, kids wall themselves from a lot of other activities like: riding a bike (ours sit in the garage for weeks), going to the library, meeting with friends IRL, painting, playing music - any and all of a 100 things we did as we grew up.
IRL interaction forces them to get out of their bubble. They shouldn't learn to run away from things they don't like so early in life.
It's not necessarily entirely bad to restrict what your children can do, since it encourages them to find ways to disregard your rules. My childhood was basically 10 or so years of a sort of cold-war escalation between myself and my controlling parents; the end result was me being independent by 17 and a skilled enough programmer to get into and work my way through university by the time I was 19. Controlling parents lit a fire under my ass; it gave me a reason to seize control of my life.
In case anybody is wondering, my relationship with my parents improved when I moved out. We now have a healthy respect for each other as adults.
I also became very independent very early on, because my parents were open with me about the things they did to take care of themselves as adults (they shared finances and budgeting, and included my sister and I in decisions about things like banking, insurance, major purchases, etc), so I knew how to be an adult.
Who knows, maybe this just shows that no matter what parents do, kids figure it out :D
But they are. There's a lot less bandwidth in online interactions and it's harder to communicate subtle nuances. I'm sure it's more comfortable for borderline autistics when everything communicated is explicit, but it's not necessarily better for their development.
In fact, I think that's why I ended up being a software engineer, and why I love what I do; it may have been something that I loved and enjoyed as a kid, but I did stacks of other activities too so I made an informed choice when I was older. It also helped developed crucial social skills by doing other social activities, and has really helped my career in doing so.
The other girl can have her iPad in her room and yet choose to draw, make art, come and speak with us (parents) and still finishes her homework.
So, you see, some kids can't resist the temptation. Other kids can balance them out.
In this, my video game experiences were almost always more positive than things in the real world (class projects, sports, ...).
1) Your first edit makes it sound like you value hardware over software. I don't think that is your intent, but it confused me for a bit.
2) The implied definition of "the real world" scares me. It seems to be a common cultural thread. It creates instances like this, where parents dismiss interactions in video games as less real than those in flesh and blood. But, in its extremes, it also creates a culture where threatening someone on social media or in game chat is ok, because "it is not real". It creates a weird dichotomy where making a new friend at a bar is somehow better than making a friend online. A lot of pop culture media is currently struggling with the narrow pre-internet definition of the real world. I think that this is going to be an ongoing issue as our lives become more digital.
3) Based on your other comments below, it sounds like, if you had been my parents, you would have banned everything I loved for my entire childhood. My childhood was defined by a series of obsessions up until I graduated high school. A large portion of my early life can be summed up by Legos, Power Rangers, GI Joe, Sonic the Hedgehog, Scooby Doo, Dragon Ball Z, anime, and live theater (think Shakespeare). None of those things have any direct real world application, but they did give me a series of common frameworks for social interaction. "Oh you liked Scooby Doo when you were a kid? Me too!"
4) Based on Edit 2, I would downvote you, but I don't think that is the purpose of downvoting. I don't favor downvoting items that are adding to a discussion just because I disagree with them. Instead downvotes should be reserved for posts that are off topic (to the point of attempting to derail a discussion), incendiary, etc.