This summer, I went to a nice space in SF named Founders, Inc. -in a quite amazing spot in the city by the way: Fort Mason; with a very 'San-Franciscan' view- listen to a live discussion between Ryan Hoover and Furqan.
Something Ryan said stuck with me since then: 'adjacent 2nd order impact'. As a non-human bot gently detailed it for us: "Second-order effects, also known as second-order consequences, refer to the indirect or ripple effects that occur as a result of an action or decision, which may not be immediately apparent. While first-order effects are the direct outcomes of an action, second-order effects are the subsequent changes that result from those initial outcomes.".
My mind started to wonder constantly about possible second-order effects around us. Two topics close to hearts -for obvious reasons- are: kids [I'm a father after all] and urbanism [I've lived all my life in urban areas and I'm a skateboarder, so my natural 'playground' are the streets]. Meanwhile, I was living this summer a kinda perfect suburban life in Berkeley, CA. Here are some behind-the-scenes pics and details by Mathilde if curious.
So when Steyn published his view on screen time limit -tl;dr: they've never enforced screen time limits on their kids [now 5 and 3 yo]- and then shared it on the #parent-lounge channel from the Sublime slack [oof] it occurred to me: kids screen time might just be an urbanism problem.
And this was -copy-pasted- my direct response to him within the slack:
it might be closer to ‘urban design’ than we think. like in ‘your kids can run downstairs and hang out with plenty other kids doing cool and dumb stuff that made them laugh’, in this case, well, i’d bet they’d all forget quickly about lil’ black screens. on the opposite, you’re 10 yo, kinda stuck in a golden-jail full of comfort named ‘big family house’ but alone, no life in the streets outside + 100% dependent on your parents’ will to drive you anywhere, well, better jump online.
There is both a good and bad news in that situation. Bad news: urbanism is not a trivial problem to solve. Good news: urbanism is inherently collective. Cause here's a harsh reality re: kids screening time: this could only be solved collectively.
This reminds me so many examples of parents just 'giving up' when faced with the friends' circle social pressure. A family we've met this summer told us about weekly letters written and handed over by their 11 yo girl asking, arguing -begging- for a phone cause she was such in despair compare to all her friends. What's one suppose to do in that case? I've frankly no idea.
The irony of it all is that loud, active, playing streets full of kids have mostly been the norm in history. This sounds like a poetry to me:
Consider this: in the 1920s, as cars slowly began to overtake streets, US courts routinely ruled that “a child has an absolute right to use the street, that it’s the responsibility of everyone else to watch out for the child. The parent does not have to be there.” Motorists pleading innocence at the time were firmly rebuffed: “That’s no excuse. You chose to operate a dangerous machine that gave you, the driver, the responsibility.”
Kai's intro here adresses this fully and I can't wait to actively create, expand and nurture Playstreets myself. Of course, this would become a forcing function for something adjacent -second order effet again- for most parents: let our kids play more freely and consequently hurt themselves. Katherine calls this 'the cost of active play' or The Engagement Tax:
Understanding this engagement tax is critical for parents wanting to curb their kids’ digital device use. I have always maintained that you cannot take screens away from kids without giving them other things to do. Something has to fill the void that is left when screens are removed from the equation, and that thing should be an increase in independent, free-range-style play, where parents step back, subtract themselves, and refrain from saying “be careful” too often.
If you're interested, I tackled exactly this and shared many more ressources on the topic in Kids protection gone too far.
What's the current situation re: kids screening time at home? Well, first I've to say our kids are only 5 and 3 yo, which to me feels 100x easier to handle than older kids and teenagers. At that age, there are just no social pressure from friends being connected through phones and kids mostly imitate their closest adults behaviours -in our case: ourselves and their teachers. Less often: the extended family and our geographically close friends. In that context, 'rules' become just straight-forward:
- there is no TV at home. i can tell you, as soon as we settle somewhere else where there is this giant black screen sitting like a king in the middle of the living room, boom, kids start asking for tv shows. remove the object, their mind wander somewhere else
- there is a no-phone policy for Mathilde and I when the kids are with us, be it at home or outside by the way. kids nowadays don't even see their parents faces, they mostly look at the back of a smartphone!
- we force as much as possible our friends and family to drop their phones when they're with the kids
- we've enrolled them in a local Montessori school where the teachers are very aware of all this and pay extra attention to invite kids to play outside, engage physically, use their body and stay away from screens
Again, this all feels like a piece of cake while they're 5 and 3 yo. And the way we approach the next phase with Mathilde actually involves: physically move somewhere where there is a strong sense of community outside and free play for kids. Which is why we're very much into all the different sort of co-living set ups -like Fractal in NYC or the Live Near Friends project. Let's see how it goes.