Here are my thoughts, I appreciate the points you’ve made, but not all of them sit well with me. My children (9&12) will pick staring at that screen, alone, over playing with friends or going outside to play alone every time. They used to get bored, go off into nature or with friends (inside or out), or dive into art supplies, archery, building, riding bikes. They seemed so much more content. Now it’s anger because they need to stop to eat, or go meet friends at the park. I’m not disagreeing that they can get benefits out of a video game, but it seens to push away everything else. I’ve let them have them for a year now. Since then, they suddenly can’t handle being bored. Being bored used to be their starting off point, never something that bothered them. They’d head out walking around the pond, sit and pet a cat, fool around on the piano… until inspiration struck. They spent hours and hours outside. It is well known that humans require certain amounts (the more the better) outside during sunrise, uva, uvb, then uva again. They also need to ground as much as possible, move their bodies, spend time with their thoughts, sort through experiences through play, be in community, avoid blue light at the wrong time of day, be outside an Non native EMF environment as much as possible. This is because our bodies are governed by these influences. Our hormones, microbiomes, circadian rhythms, energy production within our cells, the lust goes on, require us to be outside as much as possible. Sitting still for long periods of time staring at a blue screen isn’t good for you in that capacity.
My kids have been into many things. Legos, archery, fishing, biking, den building, Pokémon… I mean like obsessed. They’d spend tons of time at these things, but never did they ever do them to the exclusion of everything else. If they heard kids outside, they still jump up to go play, if we needed to go grocery shopping, it wasn’t the end of the world, they were happy to eat family meals together. Only with video games do they not want to ever stop.
If I allow them unlimited time, they’re grumpy, have so much pent up energy, the don’t interact with me during play (during legos, outdoor play, art, Pokémon, whatever else, they’re happy to talk to me throughout). Their ability to transition from one activity to another suffers. I know this is all anecdotal but to me it feels very real. Everything has changed since introducing this into our lives. I feel like I’ve lost my kids to it.
If they can get the same benefits without video games, as they did before. I think it’s better.
What games are they playing? And how do they play them?
Some games need more safety rules than others.
But Peter Gray seldom acknowledge this fact.
The problem with Peter Gray, is that he thinks that Minecraft is is the same as Diablo immortal. He thinks a fishing obsession is the same as a gambling obsession. Just give the kids some safety rules and they'll be fine.
But does he really believe this? Peter don't take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Because then he would also think it was true for drugs. But somehow drugs are worse than predatory gambling games. Maybe they is, maybe this isn't. This professor have a written a book about the safe use of drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Use_for_Grown-Ups.
One of Peter's stories about adventure playground, is also very telling. Some kids were setting fire to a cardboard castle, while inside it. And the reason Peter Gray thinks this is okay, was because an adult play-worker stood nearby, who had a fire-extinguisher in hand.
But no play-worker, are ready to help kids on social-media or in gambling Roblox games. If they were, then i would have no problem with games and social media.
But bad things happen in peer oriented cultures. The enlightenment values aren't universal. Kids don't turn into romantic hunter-gatherer tribes, if we leave them alone on the internet.
Did you send your kids to traditional school? Meaning the one that treats them like prisoners? If so, that might be a huge part of why they are behaving the way you describe.
No, they have been unschooled/SDE from the start. We work together in our home to provide as much freedom as possible for them while setting loving boundaries. We work together to set house rules. I try very hard to do right by them. Places we have to set limits are junk food and screens. They are unable to find a healthy balance on their own, thus far. Otherwise they are in charge of how they spend their time.
This made complete sense to me. I have an autistic kid for whom video games are very important. We’ve had negative comments from family members about how much she plays. But from talking to her I understand that video games are a world she’s in control of, takes enormous pleasure from and feels successful in. She plays online with friends (often the only social contact with peers in a given week). Her perseverance in the face of frustration is brilliant. She loves to go deep into the lore. She reads novels set in the world of one of her favourites. Addiction doesn’t give you a sense of achievement! It does eat up time and she can find it difficult to transition to a different activity but only in the same way someone watching their favourite team play an engrossing game on TV or a great film might find it hard to tear themselves away. We don’t have the space or money for a gaming room so she plays in the living room on the family TV so there is a natural limit because it’s a shared space and she respects that. None of this sounds like an addiction. I do often wonder how many gamers who people say are addicted because they forget to eat or wash, don’t socialise much, find the outside world tricky, get obsessed with a particular game etc are actually undiagnosed neurodivergent people.
I'm curious about that as well - whether it's a predisposition. I noticed in one of my children early on that if I allow gaming without limits, suddenly their enjoyment of all other activities will disappear. So in their case they have a predisposition. However, they are also capable to enjoying other activities in the absence of this most attractive one. While for another one of my children this is not the case & they will still happily drop the screen to go play with their friends, or go shopping with me. For my family, it works out that all my children get limited because one of them requires limits in order to be sociable, creative, & productive in other areas of life.
I can well imagine a family where either none of the children have this predilection - in these families, unrestricted access to device can be the norm with very little detriment to family life. In such a family, if a child comes along that has this problem, it could be more likely that the parents falsely imagine that this is just their child's special interest, without ever seeing that the child has the potential to develop an enjoyment of all sorts of other activities if they had restricted screen time. However, your comment made me think perhaps there are also children for whom perhaps the alternative outside of screentime is not that great?
Because I control the gaming time for my children & notice they are able to entertain themselves far better for it. I found myself having a knee-jerk reaction to seeing on the news an autistic child who cannot tolerate going to school and games at home 8+ hrs a day. My knee-jerk was to ask: why does the parent allow this? However, I have to remind myself that I don't have a severely autistic child, so I cannot judge what works for another person. It would be helpful if we could predict the developmental potential of individual children - if, say, this particular child would be unlikely to experience a fulfilled, if not productive, life otherwise (including resource considerations), then one might say that the child is living out their best life. (I kept editing this comment as I re-read & realized that I was just talking about my own situation at first, & had not really accounted for what you meant to say - that it works for your child. Thank you for your comment - it gave me a different perspective to think about than simply what works for mine.)
An additional note: I just noticed you mentioned 'she'. I wonder if girls have a protective mechanism for problematic gaming due to their natural sociability? Moreover, does having the device in the shared space help as well as a natural limit?
I was interested in your comment - I also have two kids and the other has low interest in gaming. One of the great challenges of parenting I think is to respect differences but also to be fair! Yes - the shared space provides a natural limit which is helpful. When they were younger we did also have (negotiated) limits, like you. After all, young kids don’t just naturally self-regulate - they need support to learn how to do that. To me that’s just the same as setting a bedtime etc. The original post recognises that gaming can get problematic for some people - it’s just taking issue with the ‘addiction’ model and I find I agree with that. My daughter is 17 now so it’s a different kind of parent-child relationship. As for what school is like for autistic kids… that’s a rant for another day!
My two, and myself, and my husband are unofficially but definitely neurodivergent. The boys and their dad love video games. It’s just the kids have the capacity to have a rewarding life outside of video games if they choose to. However once video games are an option they choose not to. They ignore their friends and all other interests and won’t eat until it’s negatively effecting their moods…. It just feels like a completely different animal. I am autistic and ADD and struggle mightily with socializing, too. I find, though, that when I push myself to find the right people it’s far better for my mental health than when I allow myself to retreat (I’ve done both for years long bouts). My husband does keep just to himself and his games and feels very unfulfilled. I think there are numerous things contributing to all 4 of our experiences, video games just seem to have a negative overall effect on all of us.
I know young adults who say they are/were addicted to video games and that the games messed them up. I believe them. A child whose brain forms while being overly influenced by excessive video gaming is a real thing. It’s an unnatural stimulus, it’s a time consuming sedentary activity which overstimulates certain parts of the brain with large amounts of dopamine, etc. There’s nothing else like it for kids. They can’t self regulate it. I know “experts” might disagree with me but I know what I’ve seen and experienced as a mom and a teacher. It needs to be highly monitored or just delayed so kids can be kids, and do more healthy and appropriate kid activities for healthy brain development.
I note the quotes around experts. Seems like you don’t give credence to us when we challenge your anecdotal observations. I would never disrespect my educational colleagues on their knowledge base and research in such a way. And in terms of quasi moralistic terms like “unnatural” I’d direct you to Derrida’s concept of originary technicity which posits that we have been technologically natured since our earliest origins. Lastly, I think we need to focus less on constantly surveilling our kids, often using technologies we become quickly fascinated by and overdependent on like tracking apps or blocking ones. Kids don’t learn to self-regulate when they are other-regulated into compliance. Instead they learn to be compliant, which Winnicott among others led to the development of a false self and a sense of futility in life
Yes. I agree. Creativity is disobedience and God is dead. If you like some of god's values, then take them. And if not, then just leave him there to rot.
I'm so glad, that most adults aren't forced to do "healthy and appropriate adult activities for healthy brain development". That's why it's so sad to see, that Jordan Peterson is forced to get some re-education.
It's hard to only discus one issue. One issue is, that People are people, and they are allowed to make their own mistakes. But of course they shouldn't kill themselves by accident. Another issue is, that society needs rule for property, violence, punishment, bad luck, cars, drugs and so on.
I agree with you, that the brain of some humans aren't development enough, for them to be free people. Here I'm thinking of babies, humans without any kind of language, and seriously brain damaged people. And maybe some brain washed terrorists. But they are probably just miss guided.
"Adults already have developed brains. But everybody under 25 years don't?" Einstein would probably say everybody under 50 years ;) So why 25 years?
The question is not, when brain development stops. But rather; when is a human ready to be responsible. I believe some clever kid, somewhere in the world, can drive a car flawlessly at the age of five. Haven't you seen Home Alone :)
So don't say that science says that kids are stupid. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't let authority tell kids what they can and can't do. Kids could grow so much faster, if our playgrounds were better. Free play all day.
Megan, not sure what you’re dealing with but it must be somewhat stressful. A human brain fully develops by the age of 25 years. Most teachers know that.
I don't discriminate people based on brain development.
My dad just lost all his ability to plan stuff. His brain isn't as developed as it used to be. But I'm not forcing him back to go back to school.
Should i do that? He seems happy with his life, and still manage to help around. Maybe some day his planning ability will grow back. But if I try to push him, I might just push him away.
It's his choice if he want to do "healthy and appropriate adult activities for healthy brain development".
Agree about the constant surveillance of kids, not healthy. I have 4 (grown) kids and have never done it. When a child is sitting in their bedroom on a video game they’re being constantly surveilled! The parent knows exactly where they are, they’re “safe” in their bedroom! They aren’t out exploring the world, getting exercise or developing independence. They are confined to their bedroom and a game algorithm.
I hope that, as a teacher, you understand that most schooling itself is hardly conducive to free play, enjoyable time in solitude, healthy socializing, etc. I have my skepticism about tech too, but if I had to choose between it and convention schooling, I'd pick the former every time.
I feel like anytime there is a perspective like this, they are missing the crucial element of how harmful schooling is to children. Everything that comes after is a trauma response. But to know that, you have to first see that school is a prison. Most teachers are extremely resistant to admitting this.
Just like the use of the word “addiction” is a problem for technology use as elaborated in the article, the use of language such as “school is a prison” is problematic.
How on earth is it problematic if it’s objectively true? Besides that it makes adults uncomfortable, which should be an impetus to make it NOT a prison.
Megan, I’m sorry you had such an unpleasant experience at school. There are plenty of options for your child (if you have children) but sounds like homeschool would be best.
Ups! Sorry not to have noticed this before. But it seems we all got tricked by the Umbrella-term Fallacy. Or at least failed to mention it.
Sorry I didn't acknowledge, that some video games are really bad :)
We will always face the umbrella-term problem, when we talk about video games. It’s the same when we talk about sport and religion. Do you mean blood sport? And unenlightened Islamism? “No.. Blood sport doesn’t count as sport anymore, and Islam is a peaceful religion, it’s just corrupted by politics”. And “Slot machines, that’s gambling. Surely video games are nothing like that”.
I really appreciate this nuanced perspective, and I found myself agreeing with your arguments and also wanting to push back at times. On the first point, when my son was young, he spent more time than I would have liked playing video games, but he was also very clearly working toward various goals within the game that obviously did not make sense to me, as a middle-aged woman who is not that interested in this form of entertainment. So it is very helpful to see that investment rendered here as something other than laziness!
On the other hand, the sense of reward and the enticement of today’s video games simply can’t compete, in my opinion, with the forms of entertainment that were available to kids of previous generations. The lure of screen based games also means that more kids are inside after school, not playing with each other or with other same-age peers. (Twelve year olds may be playing these games with adults, and are often playing with strangers, so it’s hard to argue it’s a social experience like forming real-life connections.)
It also seems to me that kids just spend a lot of time in these forms of relatively passive entertainment. That means they’re not doing other things that would have more long-term, prosocial benefits: talking with siblings, relatives or extended family members, playing outside with friends, reading, learning a musical instrument, etc. That displacement is what concerns me most, regardless of claims of addiction or harms to mental health.
Thank you for this piece. This kind of patient, organized outline of your main points is exactly what I needed to follow your reasoning on gaming. I would love to read more about the assessment issues, in particular, but I would eventually want to read about all the details you reference in the article.
You have helped me so much to trust my child and my students with the freedoms they deserve. The last link for me is gaming. There are definitely dangers in the digital sphere, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around how to give more gaming freedom to my daughter, in particular. I just can't let go in the ways you suggest with the infinite nature of the Internet on the other side of her use. I look forward to your more detailed articles.
I wanted to share with you a story about my 24yo stepson, who is an avid gamer. I've been trying to understand his experience, so we have been talking about how his gaming affects his life. His friend group centers and his gaming. And when his door is shut and he is gaming, he is always talking with his friends, laughing and interacting from the safety of his home. It's a view of the social nature of the gaming world I never could have seen without having an avid gamer in my home.
But the real turnaround for me was two days ago. I am a professional musician, and he wanted me to give my take on his favorite game music. I was blown away. These games are scored for professional orchestras. In an age when do much music is digital, these games are using real live professional musicians to record the tracks. The music my stepson likes is powerful, effective, beautiful, and often musically complicated. Through gaming, my stepson has developed an ear for classical music that I honestly didn't know was there. We were able to talk about the effectiveness of the music on a level that I can't engage with most non-professional classical musicians.
I thought of you the entire time I was talking to him. It was a moment where I was humbled into respect for the gaming world.
As I said earlier, I look forward to your future articles that address the issues you only touch on in this article.
While I'm very sympathetic to the experiences of some of the commenters here about gaming compulsion, if you will, I found Kandaris's piece in the New York Post to be unhinged. His characterizations are hysterical to the point of being irresponsible. Why, I wondered as I read, are so many people receptive to such alarmist talk? Then it occurred to me that there's an important feature of gaming, social media, etc., that may be making a lot of people anxious, Kandaris certainly among them. That feature is a diffusion of influence. (If someone's already presented this theory somewhere I haven't seen it.) Traditionally the influences on children and teens have been quite centralized: the family and school. Yes, many kids worked throughout history and especially before the advent of centralized schooling, but their worlds were often still quite small. With the internet we have a great diffusion of influences on young people: all kinds of political and ideological perspectives, a look at radically different cultures all over the world, etc. People like Kandaris, who clearly have an emotional investment in organized education, may fear the loss of control of the school system and other centralized forces in our lives (like government) that the internet has brought with it. It's true that social media platforms censor their users and impose some control over them--more successfully than I would like--but in terms of access to a wide range of influences, it's difficult to homogenize and control what people see online. It's too diffuse and pluralistic, and my guess is that this threatens many people, even if they're not conscious of it. This is just my first pass at this idea, but I wonder how it sits with anyone reading this.
I'm an early childhood educator and really appreciate the perspective that separates addiction from the fascination and pursuit of video games that are so much a part of our culture now. What continues to worry me is the way those pursuits have made it easier for so many young people to remove themselves from common human meeting places. Virtual communities are not the same as local neighborhoods, and the skills required for success don't translate well into the emotional adaptations required for strong human relationships. We need to learn those, and that requires a desire to be outside and in the world with others-- and nature too.
If gaming eclipses - or worse-- removes that essential desire, it doesn't matter what you call it. It's a loss we need to address somehow-- but the adults need to face it first. We have to want to manage the time we're given and not pathologize our kids' response to the world we've given them.
As another commenter said, I appreciate how much nuance you bring to these topics. Your writings have helped me to dissolve some of the negative stereotypes I had internalized about video games, which I now recognise as a form of play. I am able to relate better with the video game enthusiasts in my life, and for that I thank you.
I agree that it does more harm than good to pathologise social media/video game 'addiction' and turn them into diagnoses. I also agree that the 'overuse' of social media is likely not the fault of social media but rather a symptom of a larger imbalance in our lives/culture.
Regarding the topic of social media 'addiction,' I think it's important to make a distinction between someone who actually feels that they have a problem because the behavior is negatively impacting their life versus, say, a teen whose parents/teachers think she is addicted to her phone because she chooses to message with her friends (socialise) rather than pay attention in class (forced education).
While struggling to moderate one's behaviour (where a substance is not involved) is not unique to social media, I think that there is an extra layer of complexity because social media and other apps/websites are designed to be habit-forming and to promote binge-like behaviour. Similarly, the algorithms for these apps reward engagement (regardless of whether it is positive or negative), which ends up feeding controversy, promoting disinformation, and strengthening users' existing biases. This is something I don't think I've seen you address in your critiques of the social media moral panic, whereas from what I have seen, the ethical concern around manipulative app design is a significant aspect of the argument that social media is addictive (not just to kids).
Some of the questions that come up for me after reading this letter:
1. It sounds like folks are using the term 'addiction' in different ways. Perhaps you could clarify—do you think the term 'addiction' is and should be limited to describing chemical dependency on a mind-altering substance (i.e. you can't be addicted to behaviours)?
2. It seems like a key point of yours is that social media is not unique in its capacity to be the object of compulsive behaviour patterns, and I agree. Rather than conflating it with 'addiction,' what would you call compulsive behaviour patterns (could be anything, not just social media use) that a person engages in despite an overall negative impact on their physical health, causing them distress, wanting to stop but not being able to, etc?
3. Do you think the aforementioned tactics used by social media app developers, streaming services, etc, are a significant ethical issue or cause for concern? Social media could be a net positive in children's lives because it connects them with their friends in cultures where children's freedom is heavily restricted. Similarly, social media could be a net positive for many adults as it helps them keep in touch with loved ones around the world, promote their business, etc. However, this does not preclude social media apps from having damaging effects (e.g., does the proliferation of short-form media have a negative impact on people's attention spans?). I am curious whether there have been any credible studies which have identified negative psychological impacts of social media, as these studies could help drive policies to limit the unethical marketing/design tactics of social media companies.
Anyway, just some thoughts...I'll be curious to read what you have to say on these subjects, or any others, as you elaborate in future letters.
"...friends in cultures where children's freedom is heavily restricted..." I hope you include the U.S. in this group. American children are among the most managed and supervised in the entire world. We should talk much more about that as we discuss the potential for harm of technology. In fact, it seems counterproductive to study the effects of social media and video games without first controlling for the radical change in childhood that Peter has documented has been happening since the 1950s. If children had the freedom they used to enjoy and they STILL chose to be on screens, that's a very different conclusion from a finding that they prefer games to being hovered over by adults. What percentage of kids in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s do you think consistently chose watching TV over running around their neighborhood alone or with a pack of kids? I'm guessing a quite small percentage.
I just want to respond specifically to your point about children in the past decades & their choice in watching tv. I conducted an "experiment" on the first of my 2 children to approximately age 5 where I only showed them either shows from the periods you mentioned, or (more modern) nature documentaries. This stopped when we moved to a different country and at playdates at their friends' they would get today's children's shows & movies. They refused to watch the older shows and nature documentaries after this. They were previous happy to watch them. Now they said it was boring.
It was boring enough for children to switch it off & go play outside back in the day. There's a lot of evidence that it's 'better' now.
Your anecdote reminded me of the children I've worked with over the years. Having started showing our son Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin movies (silent and black and white) when he was three, which he enjoyed immensely, I wondered if children exposed at a later age would like them as much. It turns out that, after some initial resistance by some, almost all of them would/will watch a BK or CC movie with great attention and laughter. You could chalk this up to excellent storytelling and abundant physical humor, and I think that would probably be correct. That said, your story makes sense to me but I'm not sure it speaks to my point about whether children who watched TV in the 70s, for example, would have generally chosen the tube over going out to play for at least some amount of time. The question that needs to be answered is whether many young people are "hiding" from hovering by playing video games (something Peter has talked about), or whether they would choose play and time outdoors if they weren't being micromanaged there. Any study of video game behavior that doesn't address this seems to me poorly designed, but I would guess few of them take this issue into account, making their conclusions suspect at the very least.
The idea of hovering being a deterrent to outdoor play is interesting. I've only read a few of Gray's posts so far as I've just started so I hadn't read that part.
The changes in outdoor play contexts reminds me of Robin Moore's work Childhood's Domain published in 1986, he conducted geographical/ecological work in some neighborhoods around the UK, asking children to show where they liked to play. These children were going out of their homes playing independently, in groups or singly, without parent supervision, so the researcher was often the only adult going around with the children. They showed him many places that attracted them, some of which the parents were unlikely to know of! I read a follow-up article somewhere years later, which I sadly couldn't find back, where Moore had gone back to some of the places he surveyed & met a few of the children he had talked to, now parents themselves. They still fondly remembered the places they used to play. But when asked if their children played there as well the parents said that their own children were not allowed the free rein they themselves had experienced. From what I understand has been a trend across many countries.
Would the children have less fun & even find the experience aversive if they were being supervised in their adventures? Sadly I have never experienced this kind of free rein myself so cannot say. I can only say that when I was very involved in play I have no memory of the presence of adults. This could either speak to the uninvolved attitude my parents had towards my play (which, in hindsight, has allowed me a great deal of mental space), or my singular focus on my play.
As to the difference in videos, I think what you mentioned is correct - the storytelling & physical humor being still understandable to children. I began my experiment due to my own memories of watching cartoons in the late 1990s - I liked Mr. Rogers but found Barney the purple dinosaur incomprehensible, & liked Bugs bunny but whenever Nickelodeon came on I would be glued to the tv watching things happening really quickly - characters speaking in fast, funny voices, but have absolutely no idea what was going on. I didn't like how it made me feel - attracted but not able to make sense. When I recently heard about the Cocomelon effect I could relate to it.
But I realized I have digressed quite a bit. For gaming is quite different from watching tv - the brain is more actively engaged. It is literally play. Should it be controlled? I think it really depends on the game, & the child. When it becomes a problem I restrict the use. I set clear limits with them. One of the limits I've made is that they can 'earn' screen gaming time after they've done a specific amount of homework. This theoretically gives them a huge amount of gaming time if they do a lot of homework - but strangely they don't fully capitalize on it. They have regular chores which they are required to do. They are always allowed to have playdates with their friends. & they are allowed some tv time on the weekends - if there is time. If there isn't tv is a lower priority.
Thank you for these thoughts. Even if I mostly share them, I would like to add a few comments :
• The debate about the « addictive » dimension of video games is strongly discussed from the outside (players, media, parents, etc.) In the video games industry and game design schools, there is no debate : many video games (and social media) are explicitly designed to be "addictive", which means that all strings will be pulled to make it difficult for users to stop or quit, and to have them spend more money. I feel there is an imbalance between de-demonization of video games on one side, and the efforts of a large part of the industry to restrain players free will on the other.
• Consequently, even if the ban seems to extreme, I think there is a need for a better regulation of the apps and games. You don’t ban food because some dishes are unhealthy, but even so you’re not allowed to put fentanyl in the snacks you sell.
• Finally, I find point 2 tricky. There should always be a balance between individual and collective responsability. Positive psychology paradigm tends to put all responsabilities on individuals "You can do it if you want !", minimizing the environmental and political factors. In the case of problematic use of screens, I think acknowledging the wrongs of some apps helps people feeling less guilty about the troubles. You can get out of the trap all by yourself, but you did’nt set it (and maybe walking would be easier if they weren’t so many traps).
Until we find a cure against gambling, it's quite dangerous to let kids play that kind of games. And parents seldom notice the difference between Super Mario and a Roblox slot machine.
The reason why Peter Gray isn't worried, is because he have found a cure against gambling. And that's The GOOD LIFE on a Sudbury Valley School. But most kids don't have access to that kind of treatment.
Imagine being forced to go to a normal school again. The stress and the hopeless would kill me. If my mind were in such a vulnerable place, of cause gambling would help calm me down and kill my pain. When people are unable to deal with the problem behind their pain, they numb their sense. That's a reasonable thing to do. Whether you use pills, gambling, self-control or meditation is beside the point. The problem is still their.
Learned helplessness is one of the biggest lessons you learn in school.
"Don't follow the fun. Life is hard. Deal with it."
Demonising technology is not the key - but campaigning for more transparency from tech companies, educating the public so that they are up-to-date with the latest emerging trends and threats and equipping children with the resources to navigate intelligently and safely around the net.
From the perspective of my 10 year old (because we talk about this often) who is an avid Minecraft player and YouTube learner:
The lack of attention span is concerning for his generation. He notices aggression and impatience in his peers when playing video games and scrolling. He’s pointed out that the short-version social media (YouTube shorts etc) are easy to get sucked into for long periods of time and doesn’t lead anywhere productive. Although some shorts can be interesting. And he personally doesn’t like certain video games with violence/shooting and asks his friends to not play them in his house (also a consented family rule).
He also often expresses concern with young children having access to devices. He experienced toddler sibling become very dependent on the device, throwing aggressive tantrums when not being able to use it. (I think this is also a common age challenge and a parenting issue). He’s appalled to see little ones pacified with devices when out and about; kids are apparently not expected to partake in adult interactions and the new norm of kids being on screens at restaurants/mealtimes is so strange for our family. Also the content psychologically geared towards little ones nowadays (bright colors, specific sounds, fast pace, etc) seems to be evermore annoying and dumbed-down. (I remember when my son was a toddler he didn’t have a whole lot of interest in movies/screens for more than a few minutes)
—
I think it’s important to pay attention to content and access. Like you said, safety. I do agree that the wording of “addiction” is not helpful as we all navigate how we interact with technology.
As someone prone to being anti-video game and anti-social media, I appreciate the alternative perspective on this.
I would be interested in hearing more about the physiological addiction piece. I thought it was established that the dopamine people receive from playing video games and scrolling through social media are "addictive" in that there is a physiological tendency to do these activities in order to get the dopamine. I recognize that this is different in that people aren't really physically dependent on dopamine in the same way that someone could be physically dependent on a drug, but I'm not yet convinced that the term addiction isn't appropriate here. I'm open to learning more about this.
You’re obviously in a difficult situation. I’m so sorry to hear that - we’ve had our struggles here too.
But the article isn’t questioning whether it’s healthy for video games to take up all your time. Only whether it is an ‘addiction’. The therapist doesn’t dismiss the person looking for help or say they don’t have a problem. But he re-frames it as a time management problem. We know that time management can present particular challenges for neurodivergent people. A person may need strategies to ensure they do other things which contribute to mental and physical health. They may even need a therapist to help them with that, especially if there are mental heath difficulties in the mix. But ‘addiction’ carries a whole load of unhelpful connotations and to me doesn’t really fit.
I recently wrote about this but from the other perspective. I'm a huge fan of yours, and your book is on my parenting shelf. I understand what you're saying, but people are addicted to social media. It's not a substance addiction but it's a behavioral one. It gets in the way of their life, they have strong impulses to do it when they are not, it does cause withdrawals (anxiety, feelings of depression), and it is VERY hard to quit.
I think we are doing a disservice to people by not acknowledging that it can be addictive. I tried to quit for MONTHS before I was finally able to. I could not find any actual resources to help me because people do not acknowledge that it's problematic behavior.
I struggle to follow the argument that this is not addictive behavior, and I definitely do not think it belittles people who are struggling with other addictions.
I agree with the behaviorally addictive nature of social media. It took me 8 years of trying to fully quit Instagram. It had SUCH a hold on me. It’s been my only experience of something having such a pull on me. I knew it made me anxious and stressed and feel bad about myself. I knew it stole my attention from everything that made me feel good (being outside, gardening, art, my relationships…). I got nothing positive from it but that easy dopamine. I feel so much relief now that I’ve done it. But I still want it. I have to actively work at remaining free of it. And it’s hard. Yes, I made friends afar, but you know what, I barely miss them. Now I’ve had time to make more in person community and I feel so much better! I am doing those things I love again in earnest. It has improved everything.
Rubbish. I’ll stick to Jon Haidt’s work. As a psychotherapist, I’ve seen this problem, ahem, ADDICTION, again and again. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
In reading the discussions in Gray's substacks on this topic, I'm tending towards an individual differences point of view - that is, for certain individuals it is more problematic than others. This could even be a case of differential susceptibility! https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420002205
Possibly as a psychotherapist you will see a disproportionate for whom it is problematic. In the absence of another term as powerful as 'addiction', I would also use the term 'addiction' to characterise this problem. Certainly for those whom it is a problem it's not an issue to be dismissed. The use of pathological terms & definitions I find a constant refrain when it comes to the US - due to health insurance requirements. & rightfully rankles those who find precision important. It would be more humane if such requirements were defined or negotiated by an association that maintains the bests interests of the public, not insurance companies themselves.
Science’s strength is its humility: It acknowledges uncertainty and evolves as new evidence emerges.
A “disproven” theory doesn’t equal the theory is baseless, it simply means it has one or more flaws.
But sometimes a theory is “disproven” because the scientists are using different assumptions (and both sides of an argument can have flawed assumptions!).
Uh… no. He has made huge claims that have not been supported by research. Please read up on Candace Odgers, the leading researcher in the field of children’s mental health. She completely refutes Haidt. If Haidt cared about children, he would care that his theory is baseless. But this is all about gaining more control over children, not liberating them from despair.
The assertion that it is over gaining more control over children, however, is not something Odger mentions. She is mostly outraged about his using his position as an scientist to put forward social media use contributing to teen mental health issues that do not have a strong evidence-base for presently. This is irresponsible. She is secondly upset that such a statement takes resources (likely resource funding) away from addressing serious social issues (such as poverty, violence, neglect & insufficient social support) that seem to her more likely candidates for mental health issues.
I like how Odger is careful to note that while the evidence for social media causing mental illness is lacking, one can still make an argument for regulation of social media platforms as regards content moderation based on age as reasonable.
Of her 2nd point of (opportunity costs to research that will actually improve mental health of teens) I find her argument doubtful - for one, money set aside for research on mental health, whether put in research on social media effects or societal structure, is unlikely to create political will to overhaul the current US design anyway (car-centered neighborhood designs, two-party systems both in favor of business & the wealthy, & consequently underfunding for social good...etc). These contributions to poor wellbeing have an overwhelming body of evidence to support them being changed in research and moreover history. More research demonstrates concern - on the part of researchers, certainly - but it seems it is unlikely to yield the government actions that would help those poor suffering Americans.
In my opinion, the alarmism that Haidt generates increases political will to tackle the social media regulation that Odger agrees with. These are problematic as they are currently known to be designed to be overwhelmingly attractive to human attention. What would be a waste of public resources would be to reverse-prove that they are designed to be this way, when the leaked memos of the social media companies show that they already have good evidence that their designs work as intended. What this intention does to us is the question being addressed here - is it addiction? Does it spoil our quality of life & stunt optimal development? I find both scientists interesting to continue following.
Here are my thoughts, I appreciate the points you’ve made, but not all of them sit well with me. My children (9&12) will pick staring at that screen, alone, over playing with friends or going outside to play alone every time. They used to get bored, go off into nature or with friends (inside or out), or dive into art supplies, archery, building, riding bikes. They seemed so much more content. Now it’s anger because they need to stop to eat, or go meet friends at the park. I’m not disagreeing that they can get benefits out of a video game, but it seens to push away everything else. I’ve let them have them for a year now. Since then, they suddenly can’t handle being bored. Being bored used to be their starting off point, never something that bothered them. They’d head out walking around the pond, sit and pet a cat, fool around on the piano… until inspiration struck. They spent hours and hours outside. It is well known that humans require certain amounts (the more the better) outside during sunrise, uva, uvb, then uva again. They also need to ground as much as possible, move their bodies, spend time with their thoughts, sort through experiences through play, be in community, avoid blue light at the wrong time of day, be outside an Non native EMF environment as much as possible. This is because our bodies are governed by these influences. Our hormones, microbiomes, circadian rhythms, energy production within our cells, the lust goes on, require us to be outside as much as possible. Sitting still for long periods of time staring at a blue screen isn’t good for you in that capacity.
My kids have been into many things. Legos, archery, fishing, biking, den building, Pokémon… I mean like obsessed. They’d spend tons of time at these things, but never did they ever do them to the exclusion of everything else. If they heard kids outside, they still jump up to go play, if we needed to go grocery shopping, it wasn’t the end of the world, they were happy to eat family meals together. Only with video games do they not want to ever stop.
If I allow them unlimited time, they’re grumpy, have so much pent up energy, the don’t interact with me during play (during legos, outdoor play, art, Pokémon, whatever else, they’re happy to talk to me throughout). Their ability to transition from one activity to another suffers. I know this is all anecdotal but to me it feels very real. Everything has changed since introducing this into our lives. I feel like I’ve lost my kids to it.
If they can get the same benefits without video games, as they did before. I think it’s better.
What games are they playing? And how do they play them?
Some games need more safety rules than others.
But Peter Gray seldom acknowledge this fact.
The problem with Peter Gray, is that he thinks that Minecraft is is the same as Diablo immortal. He thinks a fishing obsession is the same as a gambling obsession. Just give the kids some safety rules and they'll be fine.
But does he really believe this? Peter don't take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Because then he would also think it was true for drugs. But somehow drugs are worse than predatory gambling games. Maybe they is, maybe this isn't. This professor have a written a book about the safe use of drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Use_for_Grown-Ups.
One of Peter's stories about adventure playground, is also very telling. Some kids were setting fire to a cardboard castle, while inside it. And the reason Peter Gray thinks this is okay, was because an adult play-worker stood nearby, who had a fire-extinguisher in hand.
But no play-worker, are ready to help kids on social-media or in gambling Roblox games. If they were, then i would have no problem with games and social media.
But bad things happen in peer oriented cultures. The enlightenment values aren't universal. Kids don't turn into romantic hunter-gatherer tribes, if we leave them alone on the internet.
The internet is not a safe place. Just look at Roblox https://youtu.be/vTMF6xEiAaY?si=svJtvDCcuS1aZifh
Did you send your kids to traditional school? Meaning the one that treats them like prisoners? If so, that might be a huge part of why they are behaving the way you describe.
No, they have been unschooled/SDE from the start. We work together in our home to provide as much freedom as possible for them while setting loving boundaries. We work together to set house rules. I try very hard to do right by them. Places we have to set limits are junk food and screens. They are unable to find a healthy balance on their own, thus far. Otherwise they are in charge of how they spend their time.
This made complete sense to me. I have an autistic kid for whom video games are very important. We’ve had negative comments from family members about how much she plays. But from talking to her I understand that video games are a world she’s in control of, takes enormous pleasure from and feels successful in. She plays online with friends (often the only social contact with peers in a given week). Her perseverance in the face of frustration is brilliant. She loves to go deep into the lore. She reads novels set in the world of one of her favourites. Addiction doesn’t give you a sense of achievement! It does eat up time and she can find it difficult to transition to a different activity but only in the same way someone watching their favourite team play an engrossing game on TV or a great film might find it hard to tear themselves away. We don’t have the space or money for a gaming room so she plays in the living room on the family TV so there is a natural limit because it’s a shared space and she respects that. None of this sounds like an addiction. I do often wonder how many gamers who people say are addicted because they forget to eat or wash, don’t socialise much, find the outside world tricky, get obsessed with a particular game etc are actually undiagnosed neurodivergent people.
I'm curious about that as well - whether it's a predisposition. I noticed in one of my children early on that if I allow gaming without limits, suddenly their enjoyment of all other activities will disappear. So in their case they have a predisposition. However, they are also capable to enjoying other activities in the absence of this most attractive one. While for another one of my children this is not the case & they will still happily drop the screen to go play with their friends, or go shopping with me. For my family, it works out that all my children get limited because one of them requires limits in order to be sociable, creative, & productive in other areas of life.
I can well imagine a family where either none of the children have this predilection - in these families, unrestricted access to device can be the norm with very little detriment to family life. In such a family, if a child comes along that has this problem, it could be more likely that the parents falsely imagine that this is just their child's special interest, without ever seeing that the child has the potential to develop an enjoyment of all sorts of other activities if they had restricted screen time. However, your comment made me think perhaps there are also children for whom perhaps the alternative outside of screentime is not that great?
Because I control the gaming time for my children & notice they are able to entertain themselves far better for it. I found myself having a knee-jerk reaction to seeing on the news an autistic child who cannot tolerate going to school and games at home 8+ hrs a day. My knee-jerk was to ask: why does the parent allow this? However, I have to remind myself that I don't have a severely autistic child, so I cannot judge what works for another person. It would be helpful if we could predict the developmental potential of individual children - if, say, this particular child would be unlikely to experience a fulfilled, if not productive, life otherwise (including resource considerations), then one might say that the child is living out their best life. (I kept editing this comment as I re-read & realized that I was just talking about my own situation at first, & had not really accounted for what you meant to say - that it works for your child. Thank you for your comment - it gave me a different perspective to think about than simply what works for mine.)
An additional note: I just noticed you mentioned 'she'. I wonder if girls have a protective mechanism for problematic gaming due to their natural sociability? Moreover, does having the device in the shared space help as well as a natural limit?
I was interested in your comment - I also have two kids and the other has low interest in gaming. One of the great challenges of parenting I think is to respect differences but also to be fair! Yes - the shared space provides a natural limit which is helpful. When they were younger we did also have (negotiated) limits, like you. After all, young kids don’t just naturally self-regulate - they need support to learn how to do that. To me that’s just the same as setting a bedtime etc. The original post recognises that gaming can get problematic for some people - it’s just taking issue with the ‘addiction’ model and I find I agree with that. My daughter is 17 now so it’s a different kind of parent-child relationship. As for what school is like for autistic kids… that’s a rant for another day!
My two, and myself, and my husband are unofficially but definitely neurodivergent. The boys and their dad love video games. It’s just the kids have the capacity to have a rewarding life outside of video games if they choose to. However once video games are an option they choose not to. They ignore their friends and all other interests and won’t eat until it’s negatively effecting their moods…. It just feels like a completely different animal. I am autistic and ADD and struggle mightily with socializing, too. I find, though, that when I push myself to find the right people it’s far better for my mental health than when I allow myself to retreat (I’ve done both for years long bouts). My husband does keep just to himself and his games and feels very unfulfilled. I think there are numerous things contributing to all 4 of our experiences, video games just seem to have a negative overall effect on all of us.
I know young adults who say they are/were addicted to video games and that the games messed them up. I believe them. A child whose brain forms while being overly influenced by excessive video gaming is a real thing. It’s an unnatural stimulus, it’s a time consuming sedentary activity which overstimulates certain parts of the brain with large amounts of dopamine, etc. There’s nothing else like it for kids. They can’t self regulate it. I know “experts” might disagree with me but I know what I’ve seen and experienced as a mom and a teacher. It needs to be highly monitored or just delayed so kids can be kids, and do more healthy and appropriate kid activities for healthy brain development.
I note the quotes around experts. Seems like you don’t give credence to us when we challenge your anecdotal observations. I would never disrespect my educational colleagues on their knowledge base and research in such a way. And in terms of quasi moralistic terms like “unnatural” I’d direct you to Derrida’s concept of originary technicity which posits that we have been technologically natured since our earliest origins. Lastly, I think we need to focus less on constantly surveilling our kids, often using technologies we become quickly fascinated by and overdependent on like tracking apps or blocking ones. Kids don’t learn to self-regulate when they are other-regulated into compliance. Instead they learn to be compliant, which Winnicott among others led to the development of a false self and a sense of futility in life
Yes. I agree. Creativity is disobedience and God is dead. If you like some of god's values, then take them. And if not, then just leave him there to rot.
I'm so glad, that most adults aren't forced to do "healthy and appropriate adult activities for healthy brain development". That's why it's so sad to see, that Jordan Peterson is forced to get some re-education.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/i-will-see-this-contemptible-re-education-process-through-to-its-absurd-end
🤔Adults already have developed brains, kids don’t. That’s the issue being discussed here.
It's hard to only discus one issue. One issue is, that People are people, and they are allowed to make their own mistakes. But of course they shouldn't kill themselves by accident. Another issue is, that society needs rule for property, violence, punishment, bad luck, cars, drugs and so on.
I agree with you, that the brain of some humans aren't development enough, for them to be free people. Here I'm thinking of babies, humans without any kind of language, and seriously brain damaged people. And maybe some brain washed terrorists. But they are probably just miss guided.
"Adults already have developed brains. But everybody under 25 years don't?" Einstein would probably say everybody under 50 years ;) So why 25 years?
The question is not, when brain development stops. But rather; when is a human ready to be responsible. I believe some clever kid, somewhere in the world, can drive a car flawlessly at the age of five. Haven't you seen Home Alone :)
So don't say that science says that kids are stupid. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't let authority tell kids what they can and can't do. Kids could grow so much faster, if our playgrounds were better. Free play all day.
The way you other children and insist their brains are so different reminds me of how white people used to talk about Black people.
Megan, not sure what you’re dealing with but it must be somewhat stressful. A human brain fully develops by the age of 25 years. Most teachers know that.
I don't discriminate people based on brain development.
My dad just lost all his ability to plan stuff. His brain isn't as developed as it used to be. But I'm not forcing him back to go back to school.
Should i do that? He seems happy with his life, and still manage to help around. Maybe some day his planning ability will grow back. But if I try to push him, I might just push him away.
It's his choice if he want to do "healthy and appropriate adult activities for healthy brain development".
I encourage you to look up childism and start unpacking some very problematic biases you have towards young humans
Agree about the constant surveillance of kids, not healthy. I have 4 (grown) kids and have never done it. When a child is sitting in their bedroom on a video game they’re being constantly surveilled! The parent knows exactly where they are, they’re “safe” in their bedroom! They aren’t out exploring the world, getting exercise or developing independence. They are confined to their bedroom and a game algorithm.
I hope that, as a teacher, you understand that most schooling itself is hardly conducive to free play, enjoyable time in solitude, healthy socializing, etc. I have my skepticism about tech too, but if I had to choose between it and convention schooling, I'd pick the former every time.
I feel like anytime there is a perspective like this, they are missing the crucial element of how harmful schooling is to children. Everything that comes after is a trauma response. But to know that, you have to first see that school is a prison. Most teachers are extremely resistant to admitting this.
Just like the use of the word “addiction” is a problem for technology use as elaborated in the article, the use of language such as “school is a prison” is problematic.
How on earth is it problematic if it’s objectively true? Besides that it makes adults uncomfortable, which should be an impetus to make it NOT a prison.
Because it has zero nuance.
That’s the point.
Megan, I’m sorry you had such an unpleasant experience at school. There are plenty of options for your child (if you have children) but sounds like homeschool would be best.
I’m a former teacher and my children are at a Sudbury school
Ups! Sorry not to have noticed this before. But it seems we all got tricked by the Umbrella-term Fallacy. Or at least failed to mention it.
Sorry I didn't acknowledge, that some video games are really bad :)
We will always face the umbrella-term problem, when we talk about video games. It’s the same when we talk about sport and religion. Do you mean blood sport? And unenlightened Islamism? “No.. Blood sport doesn’t count as sport anymore, and Islam is a peaceful religion, it’s just corrupted by politics”. And “Slot machines, that’s gambling. Surely video games are nothing like that”.
But the video game giant Blizzard made this game: youtube.com/watch?v=o17…
And the video doesn’t even talk about the sunk-cost fallacy, when it comes to high-level characters. It’s the curse of perfectionism.
Out, damned spot; Out! - Level up, damned character; Up!
I really appreciate this nuanced perspective, and I found myself agreeing with your arguments and also wanting to push back at times. On the first point, when my son was young, he spent more time than I would have liked playing video games, but he was also very clearly working toward various goals within the game that obviously did not make sense to me, as a middle-aged woman who is not that interested in this form of entertainment. So it is very helpful to see that investment rendered here as something other than laziness!
On the other hand, the sense of reward and the enticement of today’s video games simply can’t compete, in my opinion, with the forms of entertainment that were available to kids of previous generations. The lure of screen based games also means that more kids are inside after school, not playing with each other or with other same-age peers. (Twelve year olds may be playing these games with adults, and are often playing with strangers, so it’s hard to argue it’s a social experience like forming real-life connections.)
It also seems to me that kids just spend a lot of time in these forms of relatively passive entertainment. That means they’re not doing other things that would have more long-term, prosocial benefits: talking with siblings, relatives or extended family members, playing outside with friends, reading, learning a musical instrument, etc. That displacement is what concerns me most, regardless of claims of addiction or harms to mental health.
Hi Peter,
Thank you for this piece. This kind of patient, organized outline of your main points is exactly what I needed to follow your reasoning on gaming. I would love to read more about the assessment issues, in particular, but I would eventually want to read about all the details you reference in the article.
You have helped me so much to trust my child and my students with the freedoms they deserve. The last link for me is gaming. There are definitely dangers in the digital sphere, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around how to give more gaming freedom to my daughter, in particular. I just can't let go in the ways you suggest with the infinite nature of the Internet on the other side of her use. I look forward to your more detailed articles.
I wanted to share with you a story about my 24yo stepson, who is an avid gamer. I've been trying to understand his experience, so we have been talking about how his gaming affects his life. His friend group centers and his gaming. And when his door is shut and he is gaming, he is always talking with his friends, laughing and interacting from the safety of his home. It's a view of the social nature of the gaming world I never could have seen without having an avid gamer in my home.
But the real turnaround for me was two days ago. I am a professional musician, and he wanted me to give my take on his favorite game music. I was blown away. These games are scored for professional orchestras. In an age when do much music is digital, these games are using real live professional musicians to record the tracks. The music my stepson likes is powerful, effective, beautiful, and often musically complicated. Through gaming, my stepson has developed an ear for classical music that I honestly didn't know was there. We were able to talk about the effectiveness of the music on a level that I can't engage with most non-professional classical musicians.
I thought of you the entire time I was talking to him. It was a moment where I was humbled into respect for the gaming world.
As I said earlier, I look forward to your future articles that address the issues you only touch on in this article.
Andrea
While I'm very sympathetic to the experiences of some of the commenters here about gaming compulsion, if you will, I found Kandaris's piece in the New York Post to be unhinged. His characterizations are hysterical to the point of being irresponsible. Why, I wondered as I read, are so many people receptive to such alarmist talk? Then it occurred to me that there's an important feature of gaming, social media, etc., that may be making a lot of people anxious, Kandaris certainly among them. That feature is a diffusion of influence. (If someone's already presented this theory somewhere I haven't seen it.) Traditionally the influences on children and teens have been quite centralized: the family and school. Yes, many kids worked throughout history and especially before the advent of centralized schooling, but their worlds were often still quite small. With the internet we have a great diffusion of influences on young people: all kinds of political and ideological perspectives, a look at radically different cultures all over the world, etc. People like Kandaris, who clearly have an emotional investment in organized education, may fear the loss of control of the school system and other centralized forces in our lives (like government) that the internet has brought with it. It's true that social media platforms censor their users and impose some control over them--more successfully than I would like--but in terms of access to a wide range of influences, it's difficult to homogenize and control what people see online. It's too diffuse and pluralistic, and my guess is that this threatens many people, even if they're not conscious of it. This is just my first pass at this idea, but I wonder how it sits with anyone reading this.
I'm an early childhood educator and really appreciate the perspective that separates addiction from the fascination and pursuit of video games that are so much a part of our culture now. What continues to worry me is the way those pursuits have made it easier for so many young people to remove themselves from common human meeting places. Virtual communities are not the same as local neighborhoods, and the skills required for success don't translate well into the emotional adaptations required for strong human relationships. We need to learn those, and that requires a desire to be outside and in the world with others-- and nature too.
If gaming eclipses - or worse-- removes that essential desire, it doesn't matter what you call it. It's a loss we need to address somehow-- but the adults need to face it first. We have to want to manage the time we're given and not pathologize our kids' response to the world we've given them.
As another commenter said, I appreciate how much nuance you bring to these topics. Your writings have helped me to dissolve some of the negative stereotypes I had internalized about video games, which I now recognise as a form of play. I am able to relate better with the video game enthusiasts in my life, and for that I thank you.
I agree that it does more harm than good to pathologise social media/video game 'addiction' and turn them into diagnoses. I also agree that the 'overuse' of social media is likely not the fault of social media but rather a symptom of a larger imbalance in our lives/culture.
Regarding the topic of social media 'addiction,' I think it's important to make a distinction between someone who actually feels that they have a problem because the behavior is negatively impacting their life versus, say, a teen whose parents/teachers think she is addicted to her phone because she chooses to message with her friends (socialise) rather than pay attention in class (forced education).
While struggling to moderate one's behaviour (where a substance is not involved) is not unique to social media, I think that there is an extra layer of complexity because social media and other apps/websites are designed to be habit-forming and to promote binge-like behaviour. Similarly, the algorithms for these apps reward engagement (regardless of whether it is positive or negative), which ends up feeding controversy, promoting disinformation, and strengthening users' existing biases. This is something I don't think I've seen you address in your critiques of the social media moral panic, whereas from what I have seen, the ethical concern around manipulative app design is a significant aspect of the argument that social media is addictive (not just to kids).
Some of the questions that come up for me after reading this letter:
1. It sounds like folks are using the term 'addiction' in different ways. Perhaps you could clarify—do you think the term 'addiction' is and should be limited to describing chemical dependency on a mind-altering substance (i.e. you can't be addicted to behaviours)?
2. It seems like a key point of yours is that social media is not unique in its capacity to be the object of compulsive behaviour patterns, and I agree. Rather than conflating it with 'addiction,' what would you call compulsive behaviour patterns (could be anything, not just social media use) that a person engages in despite an overall negative impact on their physical health, causing them distress, wanting to stop but not being able to, etc?
3. Do you think the aforementioned tactics used by social media app developers, streaming services, etc, are a significant ethical issue or cause for concern? Social media could be a net positive in children's lives because it connects them with their friends in cultures where children's freedom is heavily restricted. Similarly, social media could be a net positive for many adults as it helps them keep in touch with loved ones around the world, promote their business, etc. However, this does not preclude social media apps from having damaging effects (e.g., does the proliferation of short-form media have a negative impact on people's attention spans?). I am curious whether there have been any credible studies which have identified negative psychological impacts of social media, as these studies could help drive policies to limit the unethical marketing/design tactics of social media companies.
Anyway, just some thoughts...I'll be curious to read what you have to say on these subjects, or any others, as you elaborate in future letters.
"...friends in cultures where children's freedom is heavily restricted..." I hope you include the U.S. in this group. American children are among the most managed and supervised in the entire world. We should talk much more about that as we discuss the potential for harm of technology. In fact, it seems counterproductive to study the effects of social media and video games without first controlling for the radical change in childhood that Peter has documented has been happening since the 1950s. If children had the freedom they used to enjoy and they STILL chose to be on screens, that's a very different conclusion from a finding that they prefer games to being hovered over by adults. What percentage of kids in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s do you think consistently chose watching TV over running around their neighborhood alone or with a pack of kids? I'm guessing a quite small percentage.
I just want to respond specifically to your point about children in the past decades & their choice in watching tv. I conducted an "experiment" on the first of my 2 children to approximately age 5 where I only showed them either shows from the periods you mentioned, or (more modern) nature documentaries. This stopped when we moved to a different country and at playdates at their friends' they would get today's children's shows & movies. They refused to watch the older shows and nature documentaries after this. They were previous happy to watch them. Now they said it was boring.
It was boring enough for children to switch it off & go play outside back in the day. There's a lot of evidence that it's 'better' now.
Your anecdote reminded me of the children I've worked with over the years. Having started showing our son Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin movies (silent and black and white) when he was three, which he enjoyed immensely, I wondered if children exposed at a later age would like them as much. It turns out that, after some initial resistance by some, almost all of them would/will watch a BK or CC movie with great attention and laughter. You could chalk this up to excellent storytelling and abundant physical humor, and I think that would probably be correct. That said, your story makes sense to me but I'm not sure it speaks to my point about whether children who watched TV in the 70s, for example, would have generally chosen the tube over going out to play for at least some amount of time. The question that needs to be answered is whether many young people are "hiding" from hovering by playing video games (something Peter has talked about), or whether they would choose play and time outdoors if they weren't being micromanaged there. Any study of video game behavior that doesn't address this seems to me poorly designed, but I would guess few of them take this issue into account, making their conclusions suspect at the very least.
The idea of hovering being a deterrent to outdoor play is interesting. I've only read a few of Gray's posts so far as I've just started so I hadn't read that part.
The changes in outdoor play contexts reminds me of Robin Moore's work Childhood's Domain published in 1986, he conducted geographical/ecological work in some neighborhoods around the UK, asking children to show where they liked to play. These children were going out of their homes playing independently, in groups or singly, without parent supervision, so the researcher was often the only adult going around with the children. They showed him many places that attracted them, some of which the parents were unlikely to know of! I read a follow-up article somewhere years later, which I sadly couldn't find back, where Moore had gone back to some of the places he surveyed & met a few of the children he had talked to, now parents themselves. They still fondly remembered the places they used to play. But when asked if their children played there as well the parents said that their own children were not allowed the free rein they themselves had experienced. From what I understand has been a trend across many countries.
Would the children have less fun & even find the experience aversive if they were being supervised in their adventures? Sadly I have never experienced this kind of free rein myself so cannot say. I can only say that when I was very involved in play I have no memory of the presence of adults. This could either speak to the uninvolved attitude my parents had towards my play (which, in hindsight, has allowed me a great deal of mental space), or my singular focus on my play.
As to the difference in videos, I think what you mentioned is correct - the storytelling & physical humor being still understandable to children. I began my experiment due to my own memories of watching cartoons in the late 1990s - I liked Mr. Rogers but found Barney the purple dinosaur incomprehensible, & liked Bugs bunny but whenever Nickelodeon came on I would be glued to the tv watching things happening really quickly - characters speaking in fast, funny voices, but have absolutely no idea what was going on. I didn't like how it made me feel - attracted but not able to make sense. When I recently heard about the Cocomelon effect I could relate to it.
But I realized I have digressed quite a bit. For gaming is quite different from watching tv - the brain is more actively engaged. It is literally play. Should it be controlled? I think it really depends on the game, & the child. When it becomes a problem I restrict the use. I set clear limits with them. One of the limits I've made is that they can 'earn' screen gaming time after they've done a specific amount of homework. This theoretically gives them a huge amount of gaming time if they do a lot of homework - but strangely they don't fully capitalize on it. They have regular chores which they are required to do. They are always allowed to have playdates with their friends. & they are allowed some tv time on the weekends - if there is time. If there isn't tv is a lower priority.
I basically echo everything said here! Thank you for your comment.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for these thoughts. Even if I mostly share them, I would like to add a few comments :
• The debate about the « addictive » dimension of video games is strongly discussed from the outside (players, media, parents, etc.) In the video games industry and game design schools, there is no debate : many video games (and social media) are explicitly designed to be "addictive", which means that all strings will be pulled to make it difficult for users to stop or quit, and to have them spend more money. I feel there is an imbalance between de-demonization of video games on one side, and the efforts of a large part of the industry to restrain players free will on the other.
• Consequently, even if the ban seems to extreme, I think there is a need for a better regulation of the apps and games. You don’t ban food because some dishes are unhealthy, but even so you’re not allowed to put fentanyl in the snacks you sell.
• Finally, I find point 2 tricky. There should always be a balance between individual and collective responsability. Positive psychology paradigm tends to put all responsabilities on individuals "You can do it if you want !", minimizing the environmental and political factors. In the case of problematic use of screens, I think acknowledging the wrongs of some apps helps people feeling less guilty about the troubles. You can get out of the trap all by yourself, but you did’nt set it (and maybe walking would be easier if they weren’t so many traps).
Until we find a cure against gambling, it's quite dangerous to let kids play that kind of games. And parents seldom notice the difference between Super Mario and a Roblox slot machine.
The reason why Peter Gray isn't worried, is because he have found a cure against gambling. And that's The GOOD LIFE on a Sudbury Valley School. But most kids don't have access to that kind of treatment.
Imagine being forced to go to a normal school again. The stress and the hopeless would kill me. If my mind were in such a vulnerable place, of cause gambling would help calm me down and kill my pain. When people are unable to deal with the problem behind their pain, they numb their sense. That's a reasonable thing to do. Whether you use pills, gambling, self-control or meditation is beside the point. The problem is still their.
Learned helplessness is one of the biggest lessons you learn in school.
"Don't follow the fun. Life is hard. Deal with it."
I wish people would stop spreading that lie.
Are all kids getting to have a different sort of childhood than previous generations? Will it change how they grow up, how their brains develop?
Demonising technology is not the key - but campaigning for more transparency from tech companies, educating the public so that they are up-to-date with the latest emerging trends and threats and equipping children with the resources to navigate intelligently and safely around the net.
From the perspective of my 10 year old (because we talk about this often) who is an avid Minecraft player and YouTube learner:
The lack of attention span is concerning for his generation. He notices aggression and impatience in his peers when playing video games and scrolling. He’s pointed out that the short-version social media (YouTube shorts etc) are easy to get sucked into for long periods of time and doesn’t lead anywhere productive. Although some shorts can be interesting. And he personally doesn’t like certain video games with violence/shooting and asks his friends to not play them in his house (also a consented family rule).
He also often expresses concern with young children having access to devices. He experienced toddler sibling become very dependent on the device, throwing aggressive tantrums when not being able to use it. (I think this is also a common age challenge and a parenting issue). He’s appalled to see little ones pacified with devices when out and about; kids are apparently not expected to partake in adult interactions and the new norm of kids being on screens at restaurants/mealtimes is so strange for our family. Also the content psychologically geared towards little ones nowadays (bright colors, specific sounds, fast pace, etc) seems to be evermore annoying and dumbed-down. (I remember when my son was a toddler he didn’t have a whole lot of interest in movies/screens for more than a few minutes)
—
I think it’s important to pay attention to content and access. Like you said, safety. I do agree that the wording of “addiction” is not helpful as we all navigate how we interact with technology.
As someone prone to being anti-video game and anti-social media, I appreciate the alternative perspective on this.
I would be interested in hearing more about the physiological addiction piece. I thought it was established that the dopamine people receive from playing video games and scrolling through social media are "addictive" in that there is a physiological tendency to do these activities in order to get the dopamine. I recognize that this is different in that people aren't really physically dependent on dopamine in the same way that someone could be physically dependent on a drug, but I'm not yet convinced that the term addiction isn't appropriate here. I'm open to learning more about this.
You’re obviously in a difficult situation. I’m so sorry to hear that - we’ve had our struggles here too.
But the article isn’t questioning whether it’s healthy for video games to take up all your time. Only whether it is an ‘addiction’. The therapist doesn’t dismiss the person looking for help or say they don’t have a problem. But he re-frames it as a time management problem. We know that time management can present particular challenges for neurodivergent people. A person may need strategies to ensure they do other things which contribute to mental and physical health. They may even need a therapist to help them with that, especially if there are mental heath difficulties in the mix. But ‘addiction’ carries a whole load of unhelpful connotations and to me doesn’t really fit.
I recently wrote about this but from the other perspective. I'm a huge fan of yours, and your book is on my parenting shelf. I understand what you're saying, but people are addicted to social media. It's not a substance addiction but it's a behavioral one. It gets in the way of their life, they have strong impulses to do it when they are not, it does cause withdrawals (anxiety, feelings of depression), and it is VERY hard to quit.
I think we are doing a disservice to people by not acknowledging that it can be addictive. I tried to quit for MONTHS before I was finally able to. I could not find any actual resources to help me because people do not acknowledge that it's problematic behavior.
I struggle to follow the argument that this is not addictive behavior, and I definitely do not think it belittles people who are struggling with other addictions.
I agree with the behaviorally addictive nature of social media. It took me 8 years of trying to fully quit Instagram. It had SUCH a hold on me. It’s been my only experience of something having such a pull on me. I knew it made me anxious and stressed and feel bad about myself. I knew it stole my attention from everything that made me feel good (being outside, gardening, art, my relationships…). I got nothing positive from it but that easy dopamine. I feel so much relief now that I’ve done it. But I still want it. I have to actively work at remaining free of it. And it’s hard. Yes, I made friends afar, but you know what, I barely miss them. Now I’ve had time to make more in person community and I feel so much better! I am doing those things I love again in earnest. It has improved everything.
Yes! I relate to this so much.
Rubbish. I’ll stick to Jon Haidt’s work. As a psychotherapist, I’ve seen this problem, ahem, ADDICTION, again and again. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
In reading the discussions in Gray's substacks on this topic, I'm tending towards an individual differences point of view - that is, for certain individuals it is more problematic than others. This could even be a case of differential susceptibility! https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420002205
Possibly as a psychotherapist you will see a disproportionate for whom it is problematic. In the absence of another term as powerful as 'addiction', I would also use the term 'addiction' to characterise this problem. Certainly for those whom it is a problem it's not an issue to be dismissed. The use of pathological terms & definitions I find a constant refrain when it comes to the US - due to health insurance requirements. & rightfully rankles those who find precision important. It would be more humane if such requirements were defined or negotiated by an association that maintains the bests interests of the public, not insurance companies themselves.
You know Haidt has been repeatedly disproven by actual researchers in the field?
Science’s strength is its humility: It acknowledges uncertainty and evolves as new evidence emerges.
A “disproven” theory doesn’t equal the theory is baseless, it simply means it has one or more flaws.
But sometimes a theory is “disproven” because the scientists are using different assumptions (and both sides of an argument can have flawed assumptions!).
Uh… no. He has made huge claims that have not been supported by research. Please read up on Candace Odgers, the leading researcher in the field of children’s mental health. She completely refutes Haidt. If Haidt cared about children, he would care that his theory is baseless. But this is all about gaining more control over children, not liberating them from despair.
I read her Nature review based on your recommendation. Thanks for that! It is unfortunately behind a paywall, but I did find an accessible version here for those who are interested: https://internet.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/532-Master/532-UnitPages/Unit-11/Odgers_Nature_2024.pdf
The assertion that it is over gaining more control over children, however, is not something Odger mentions. She is mostly outraged about his using his position as an scientist to put forward social media use contributing to teen mental health issues that do not have a strong evidence-base for presently. This is irresponsible. She is secondly upset that such a statement takes resources (likely resource funding) away from addressing serious social issues (such as poverty, violence, neglect & insufficient social support) that seem to her more likely candidates for mental health issues.
I like how Odger is careful to note that while the evidence for social media causing mental illness is lacking, one can still make an argument for regulation of social media platforms as regards content moderation based on age as reasonable.
Of her 2nd point of (opportunity costs to research that will actually improve mental health of teens) I find her argument doubtful - for one, money set aside for research on mental health, whether put in research on social media effects or societal structure, is unlikely to create political will to overhaul the current US design anyway (car-centered neighborhood designs, two-party systems both in favor of business & the wealthy, & consequently underfunding for social good...etc). These contributions to poor wellbeing have an overwhelming body of evidence to support them being changed in research and moreover history. More research demonstrates concern - on the part of researchers, certainly - but it seems it is unlikely to yield the government actions that would help those poor suffering Americans.
In my opinion, the alarmism that Haidt generates increases political will to tackle the social media regulation that Odger agrees with. These are problematic as they are currently known to be designed to be overwhelmingly attractive to human attention. What would be a waste of public resources would be to reverse-prove that they are designed to be this way, when the leaked memos of the social media companies show that they already have good evidence that their designs work as intended. What this intention does to us is the question being addressed here - is it addiction? Does it spoil our quality of life & stunt optimal development? I find both scientists interesting to continue following.