This is clearly written by an adult who forgot how most children behave.
If they're the only ones without a smartphone, they'll be single out. Especially with how prevalent online communication has become.
They might not be bullied (though they probably will be), but growing up as the outsider comes with is own can of worms.
They'll most likely survive it, but it'll have it's effect... But everything has consequences so I guess ymmv.
It's just kinda annoying to constantly read about these parents making tech into something harmful (which it obviously can be) and their own great strategy to counter this, which has at least as many dangers for their mental health as the alternative had.
I think your take is valid, but also missing large areas.
Even if they AREN'T bullied for lack, they'll miss out on all the socialization. When I was a teen people talked on the phone, they hung out at the mall. I barely did. When not at school, I stayed at home to care for my younger brother and make sure dinner was made (child of a working single mom). I went out of state to my dad's place every summer, so I never spent summer vacation around my school peers.
Now I'm an adult, and I don't have close friends. I never have. I don't know how to open up to people, or how to hang out with people where it isn't an obligation on one part or the other. I remain aloof, then desperately overshare (case in point), then feel awkward and embarrassed and withdraw. I've had two serious relationships in my life...and got married both times.
Today's kids won't be talking on the phone, they won't be texting, they won't even be tweeting, they'll be snapping or instagramming or any number of things. They'll be sharing the experiences they have in common and generating those experiences, and for many, MANY of them those experiences will be around smartphone tech.
And this author has decided their kids don't need that shared experience. That comes at a cost.
Counterpoint, I had all the socialization I could possibly want growing up, and as an adult I had to unlearn a lot of social behaviors that I had learned when I was surrounded exclusively by my peers.
I personally think that socialization is often meant as "acting like the popular kids act" (though it doesn't sound like you're using it that way) and as my kids grow up, I am regularly shocked at how crappy kids are to each other. When I was a kid, I thought all the homeschooled kids I knew were weird, but they just acted like the adults in their lives, and without exception, they all turned into well-functioning adults.
Despite my negative take on socialization, though, we are also very liberal with technology. We just have high standards for their behavior, and don't think that following trends is good for it's own sake.
I think you're taking a problem of "opportunity + practice = success" and pointing out that you had opportunity but not success, and therefore opportunity is irrelevant.
> socialization is often meant as "acting like the popular kids act" (though it doesn't sound like you're using it that way)
My usage is more a matter of "understanding the social skills that are not formally taught". In particular, I'm talking about things like understanding social cues, when/how to be supportive, etc. There are absolutely negative social skills that can be learned this way, so you're correct there. But even a gang of jerks has social structures and interactions, and someone that never got much practice/exposure at those will struggle to even succeed in joining a gang of jerks. (Not that doing so is such a great aspiration)
> I am regularly shocked at how crappy kids are to each other
Totally. I recall previous articles (I believe on HN) about how parents hate the shows on the Disney channel because they demonstrate/teach terrible social skills for tweens. (Bratty children, idiot parents, etc).
Putting kids in a group won't teach them how to be good people and I didn't mean to imply that. It _will_ teach them to be a social group. These ideas are orthogonal.
I mostly wanted to provide a countervailing anecdote rather than any sort of fixed rule.
I would say that I definitely had success, by your definition of social. I've never had a problem making friends, but socialization as a kid didn't benefit me long term because being social with pre-teens and teenagers is useless training for being social with adults in a professional environment, which is where I now spend most of my time. I basically had to learn to be social all over again.
So I guess I take issue with the idea that people need to be around their peers to learn to be social at all. I agree that social skills are not formally taught, and that they need to be learned, but I think all that is required to accomplish this is that children are around people who interact with them. If they have that, I think the cost of them not being involved in whatever kids these days are doing is not that high, and definitely not as high as they might think it is in the moment.
Group chats on Facebook / WhatsApp / Telegram are how people share experiences, learn, set up meetings or parties. All the people which I've met so far who didn't use those platforms were socially isolated. Not sure whether it's correlation or causation, it still does count.
Obviously, having a smartphone won't magically bring you friends.
Anecdata, but I had the exact same experience refusing to use Facebook when it was trendy (was really young at the time). I caved after a year and it was like stepping into another world.
> Obviously, having a smartphone won't magically bring you friends.
No it won't - it's not necessarily social death to avoid these platforms, but it was an intense struggle to grow any friendship without it. You need to go where the people are talking to each other, even if you dislike where they're standing.
I get your point, but you not buying them a smartphone is not the same as them not beeing able to have one. I was in school when Gameboys were the thing everybody had. Besides the fact that I know many kids who grew up to be exceptionally fine people without having had one – many kids just had to save up their pocket money or earn it by mowing the lawn.
I remember having had deals with my parents like: If I pay half, they give me the other half as a birthday present. And my parents could definitly afford it. The neighbour kid, whose father worked for my father after he gave them the place when they sought shelter (Bosnian war refugees), got literally everything he wanted. Our parents explained to us why his parents do that and why they don't. And although we also would have wished for these things we understood.
This is the responsible way to act in my opinion. It shows your kid that they really need to do something if they want something. It teaches them to value the thing that they got and if they spend their pocket money on rubbish it teaches them not to spend money on rubbish. And if it is something that makes sense for them to have (e.g. teaching material, books, a raspberry pi you can still be generous).
I have a friend who was not allowed to own a cell phone in HS. Just as you said, she was often left out of inside jokes, group discussions (bonding), and more often than not left out of social meetups (organized via social media). But the worst? Gooooodbye to a dating life. No teenager is going to call a house phone or be prevented from texting their GF/BF -- doesn't work, period.
> If they're the only ones without a smartphone, they'll be single out
From South Park, season 3 episode 11, "Chinpokomon":
Kyle: Please Mom? Everybody else has Chinpokomon.
Gerald: Well, Kyle, that's not a reason to buy something.
You see, son, fads come and go. And this "Chin-po-ko-mon" is obviously nothing more than a fad. You don't have to be a part of it. In fact, you can make an even stronger statement by saying to your peers, "I'm not going to be a part of this fad, because I'm an individual." Do you understand?
Kyle: Yes. Yes, I do, Dad. Now let me tell you how it works in the real world. In the real world, I can either get a Chinpokomon, or I can be the only kid without one, which singles me out, and causes the other kids to make fun of me and kick my ass.
Gerald: Hm... Good point; here's $10. [hands it to him]
Kyle: Thanks.
Gerald: Wait, here's 20. Get one for your brother, too. [Kyle receives the other $10 and walks out]
I have a son around the same age as the authors and I've definitely thought about it. It's an addicting device to both adults and children so there is some merit to not having one. That said, my kid is a musician and gets to connect and collaborate with other kids in different states and countries from all walks of life. I find that pretty amazing and a plus to him having a smartphone.
My mother was a teaching assistant at a small private school. There was one girl there whose parents wouldn't let her have her smart phone and she was the only one with no phine. So a group of girls ran a fundraising drive to get her a smart phone - until the parents got wind of it and had the principal put a stop yo it. The story shows that this girl was popular and well liked by her friends.
She actually had cool projects like she would sew small squares od cotton and sell it to other girls as doll pillows. So I understand that a private school is an exclusive environment where there might be less bullying. However, I disagree that being bullied for not having something is a foregone conclusion and. I strongly disagree with the premise that we should buy or give children things that might affect them negatively due ti the possibility of being bullied
> which has at least as many dangers for their mental health as the alternative had
While I'm not saying there aren't issues with not having a smart phone, I'm not sure there is evidence to support this. It may very well be true, but it's hard to say.
I don't know, we didn't bully kids that didn't have a Nintendo/Sega/Playstation growing up, I'm not sure this is too much different. My son is 9 and wants a phone. He has a tablet. The only reason he can articulate for wanting a phone is that many of his friends have one, which is not a great reason. He has a specialized kids watch that is a phone, so he's covered on the "contact parents" front. Otherwise, he's never said anything about getting made fun of on the issue, and he's been plenty upfront when anything like getting made fun of or bullying has been an issue in the past.
It's not about having the device, it's about the social apps/internet culture that goes with it. Arguably the most popular content for kids last year was Fortnite YouTubers, even just being left out of that.. it's difficult to fit in when you have no connection to what's being talked about.
This very much so (although I didn't experience any bullying but I'd assume there would be some jokes now a days because phones do so much more). I didn't get a cell phone until maybe 10th or 11th grade while most of the other kids had Blackberries or shitty flip phones. I missed out a lot of socialization via text and bbm at the time, probably 7th grade. I didn't really care at the time but once I was older I realized how big a deal it was.
If they're the only ones without a smartphone, they'll be single out. Especially with how prevalent online communication has become.
They might not be bullied (though they probably will be), but growing up as the outsider comes with is own can of worms.
They'll most likely survive it, but it'll have it's effect... But everything has consequences so I guess ymmv.
It's just kinda annoying to constantly read about these parents making tech into something harmful (which it obviously can be) and their own great strategy to counter this, which has at least as many dangers for their mental health as the alternative had.