> Oh, I grew up in the same times, in the same general area, with just a little whee bit of difference: I'm aspergers, I'm socially anxious, and I quite clearly remember that most of the fun groups like you mention had were actually at the expense of the kids like me.
It seems a rather "Harrison Bergeron" to disparage the sort of unsupervised and unrestrained play that martythemaniak is talking about just because some fraction of children are ill-equipped to participate in it.
I'm not sure how to take this, but the book epoused the attitude that "everyone treated equally" could lead to unforeseen consequences (i.e., 214th and later amendments to the Constitution).
I don't think that LaGrange would ever want forced equality. He's just adding perspective. And I think it's fair to say that kids will just find ways to have fun, either with tablets or without.
In one of our in-groups we hang out with occasionally, I've seen kids grow through the past 10 years. About 2-3 years ago, they started showing up to parties/events with iPads. Now they don't (even their little brothers sisters). Sometimes they were crowded around the Wii. Nowadays they aren't (again also the littler ones).
Kids will find ways to have fun with each other, and make use of their spare time. I don't think technology and the proliferation of digital toys are poisoning them. I think the lack of free time in general in our modern society is more pernicious (both for kids and their parents). Free time is a resource that is precious even for kids - give them this and they'll turn out ok.
Specifically the book argued that the capable in society should be artificially restricted to bring them down to the same level as the less capable.
Disparaging unsupervised and unstructured play because some people find themselves unable to enjoy participating in that seems like exactly the sort of thing the book was (with hyperbole, obviously) warning us about.
Honestly, I don't think technology is damaging to children either. However I do think that too much structure and supervision is, even if some children find themselves unable to thrive without supervision and structure.
> Specifically the book argued that the capable in society should be artificially restricted to bring them down to the same level as the less capable.
The book (or more accurately, Vonnegut) argued exactly the opposite. Burgeron is the protagonist, so we empathize with his worldview against the dystopian future. Reading further to other works by the same author, it's a recurring theme (e.g.: Slaughterhouse Five).
One of my observations has been that kids today are less shitty than they used to be. More structure means that less is left to the Lord of the Flies-esque social mechanics that arise among children left to their own devices.
I admit, there is an element of that. However I think that so long as there is an easy "ejection seat", the "Lord of the Flies"-esque aspects can be kept reasonable.
I've mentioned this on HN before, but when I was a child I was a boy scout and my experiences in that organization left a very bad taste in my mouth. Specifically during long camping trips you would frequently get very strong "Lord of the Flies" type situations that would escalate for days on end. When I was just at home, getting in stick fights and throwing rocks with neighborhood kids in the woods, any of us could always just run home when the others began to get absurdly out of line. On long camping trips with BSA there was no such escape. Although I was never really the victim of those situations, on several occasions things did plainly get out of hand.
Tearing around the neighborhood looking for trouble though? I think that is fine. As long as kids can reasonably tap themselves out, and don't remain locked into the situation for days on end, I don't think there is a risk of much permanent damage. Most common worse case scenario: some kids just don't play with the others; no big deal.
Edit: Thinking about it more, having evenings "off" also probably provides a much needed 'cool down' time for kids to reflect and prevent strong 'cult of personality' situations from taking root. Constant exposure allows mini-tyrants to get people under their thumb in a way that just cannot be replicated. Constant exposure probably explains a lot of what I experienced.
I'm not sure this is actually true though. I have younger siblings (as in, much younger) and they seem to have to deal with a lot of stupid shit from their peers.
I'm doubtful. My little sister describes and has the same problems I encountered. Sometimes it's not expressed in the same way, for example the facebook stalking and bullying, but on average it seems like her experience isn't less shitty than mine was.
EDIT: To clarify, it's not just based on my sister, but what I just said was anecdotal. I didn't mean to argue your point, but rather I'd like to hear why you think it is the case, when my experience has been different.
Oh please. It was not "unrestrained", it was restrained by the limited resources. And it was not that the children were ill-equipped, they were perfectly equipped to compensate for the lacking toys by becoming them.
> Oh please. It was not "unrestrained", it was restrained by the limited resources.
Make sure to also point out that it was also "restrained" by gravity, conservation of energy, and limited access to high explosives...
Of course with imagination none of these things are actually restraints to children, and with imagination on your part you should be able to figure out that the restraint I am talking about is helicopter parents jumping in every time little Jimmy throws his water balloon at somebody instead of just playing catch with it like a "good boy" should.
I am talking about freedom from restrictive overly protective rules, not freedom from limitations of reality or the environment.
I sympathize with the plight of children who can't interact with other children in that way. What I don't do is think that the play of other children should be curtailed to accommodate the others. I don't think this is narcissistic of me; I don't have any dog in this fight as I don't have children and am not a child myself.
It seems a rather "Harrison Bergeron" to disparage the sort of unsupervised and unrestrained play that martythemaniak is talking about just because some fraction of children are ill-equipped to participate in it.