Modern life 'has turned children into loners'

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Modern life 'has turned children into loners' | Uk News | News | Telegraph

Children are struggling to make friends at school because they spend too long playing computer games and listening to MP3 players, according to teachers.

According to teachers a rise in solitary activities has coincided with a decline in playground interaction An increase in "solitary pastimes" has damaged children's social skills and fuelled feelings of loneliness among a generation of young people, they say. Today's report says that 59 per cent of primary teachers had witnessed bullying in the last 12 months and 55 per cent saw children meting out physical violence on another pupil. A further 71 per cent of teachers witnessed young children verbally abusing a peer. Alarmingly, the majority of staff said anti-social behaviour among five to 11-year-olds was as bad or worse compared to when they started teaching. The conclusions come as experts say that aspects of modern life are having a damaging impact on children, leading to depression, behavioural problems and developmental conditions such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Can a childs world of self become selfish and intolerable?

[Osborn F Enready]

Arawn said: Can a childs world of self become selfish and intolerable?

Surely, and with only the removal or abstinence of teaching respect and individual rights and expecting those qualities from children as parents.

Children are dependents, and they don't understand self until allowed a taste of what self responsibity entails, meaning self-responsibility for life, as well as actions.

[Rinoa]

Humans are social animals, but if the opportunity for social interaction is not provided they do not develop the proper skills to interact with one another in a social environment. The only way to make sure that your child does is to encourage(setup) playdates with other children, and giving them non tv activities such as crafts or squirt gun fights.

Without this interaction, and with the rising amount of children that are the only child in their family I'd say it is very likely for them to lack empathy. A lack of empathy causes both intolerance and selfishness.

[Praxius]

I wasn't popular, I was stuck playing games all the time, I turned out just fine

I am more independant if anything, but I sure am not selfish, or absorbed into myself by any means. I still can socialize with people, but it's not a requirement in my life.

[Rinoa]

Of course it is possible to turn out ok, because there are other factors involved, but someone who sits in front of a screen all day playing games all by themselves is less likely to have the social skills.

[Slevin57]

I think this teacher is over-reacting and ignoring some obvious technological advances.

For instance, not all video games are played alone. In fact students "virtually" interact with thousands of other people per day in multilayer games. Some people build up huge networks of relationships that are every bit as complicated as real relationships in school.

As for iPod's.. I don't know anyone who listens 24/7, but a little bit of downtime never hurt anyone.

I think the problem they should be focusing on is that these kids are not getting the exercise and physical development advantages that the previous generation had.

[Osborn F Enready]

Interactive activities, as well as individual activities are great, and important to childhood, but only in balance with social and active activities that allow the child to learn critical, basic life lessons both in social skills as well as basic physics, life experience issues.

For example, if as a child you play on monkeybars and do active sports or play with other kids, you are exposed to both peer pressure and risky activities at the same time, yet in a relatively controllable enviroment. This child could better weigh later peer pressure decisions in life involving inherant risk that is much more lethal than a simple failed jump from a swing, or fall from the monkeybars.

I think parents who fear for the safety of their kids so much that they refuse to allow them to engage in risky activities are a part of the problem with adults who don't understand, recognize or take seriously individual responsibility.

Parents today are far too passive, and I think partly, because they fear repercussions from others and the law for being to forthright and active in raising their child as THEY see fit.

My current neighbors on one side, once had their child call " child protective services " on them, as REPERATIONS, not because the children were harmed or abused. After that hassle and legal costs, they were afraid to punish their kids. As a result, the kids are absolute pains in the ass now as they are becoming legal adults, in all aspects, legal, social, economicly. Both dropped out of school and got "electronic classroom diplomas" from their home computers, the parents got divorced, and the entire situation is a situation of parental neglect of responsibility to their children, and themselves.

[Rinoa]

I'm sorry, could you be more specific as to what DCFS was called for?

[Le GoogelGuRu]

I think less blame should be put on the technology / video game industry. While children need to develop social skills, and playing World of Warcraft all day probably doesn't help, it doesn't mean that all or the majority of children will end up this way. Social interaction is mandatory for children to develop their social skills, obviously, but it's not like technology is ruining the entire thing. I'm part of the latest generation and I turned out fine.

A little off-topic, but in French class our teacher got off topic, as usual, and started talking about video games and television and such and she went into this issue (somewhat). I highly doubt Virginia Tech had anything to do with video games, while Columbine may of. Our teacher takes it to the extreme though --- she went off complaining about how every video game should be banned, including Mario and Pokemon and some of the other milder ones. In my opinion, Grand Theft Auto and similar games may influence younger kids to become violent and whatnot but if you have control, under moderation it's fine. I've played it.

Quote by: Slevin57 For instance, not all video games are played alone. In fact students "virtually" interact with thousands of other people per day in multilayer games. Some people build up huge networks of relationships that are every bit as complicated as real relationships in school.

That's definitely correct, but I don't think it's the same as relationships in real life. Sometimes these MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games), or just MMOs in general (Massive Multiplayer One Games) can take away people's real life. If you look around the internet, at World of Warcraft (example, once again), for instance, you'll find way too many horror stories on how it takes away your life. I decided to put this to the test. I can get addicted to things really quickly if I don't keep my self control going, and World of Warcraft, along with many other multiplayer online games is very addicting. I've been playing it on and off for a while now and I have enough control not to skip school and play 10 hours a day. I've met some friends, interacted with school friends on there, did instances, battlegrounds, etc. etc. etc. with people but it really isn't the same as real life and kids need more outside MMORPGs. Runescape is getting overly popular around here. I spend a lot of time at the library, I'm a researching-reading type of person, and there are kids bolting to the library the second school ends, that are only in grade 3 to 6 rushing into the library's public computer rooms to reserve their computers to play for about 3 hours. They argue and push their way over just to play the game.

I don't see what MP3 players have to do with it. Listening to music is not going to make you a loner. I, like many other teens, have an iPod. So what if you listen to a few songs on the bus or wherever? It's not like the whole school walks around and never speaks because they're listening to music.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Parents today are far too passive, and I think partly, because they fear repercussions from others and the law for being to forthright and active in raising their child as THEY see fit.

Amen.

[Scoobydoo]

Arawn...
yes, agreed....it also besides causign social deficits causes attention difficulties, problem solving capabilities, communication skill, conflict resolution etc etc it also causes a lack of ability to be creative. Kids used to (I remember the days...) do things like ride bikes after school, play make up games, do arts and crafts, have to work together to think of what game or activity to do on a summer day, making a lemonade stand, putting on plays for family or friends etc. Sitting in front of a c omputer is a brain drain for kids to do all the time, (so hypocritical as I sit here on the computer- oops!) but kids brains arent fully developed and they need to learn how to imagine, just be content sitting around reading a book, lying on the grass and looking at clouds, it sounds corny but all of htat teaches valuable life skills and coping. Kids now just expect things to be spoon fed tothem, no imagination, no need to interact at least not much

[fushigi]

No offense, Arawn, but this is the crappiest "news" story I've seen in a while.

Today's report says that 59 per cent of primary teachers had witnessed bullying in the last 12 months and 55 per cent saw children meting out physical violence on another pupil. A further 71 per cent of teachers witnessed young children verbally abusing a peer. Alarmingly, the majority of staff said anti-social behaviour among five to 11-year-olds was as bad or worse compared to when they started teaching.

Compared to...? Are these numbers increasing or decreasing?

And where's the evidence that computer games and MP3 are causing this? You might as well blame Tony Blair or the ban on fox hunting.

More than 70 per cent of teachers said that increased use of games consoles, mobile phones, the internet and MP3 players has harmed children's ability to interact with their peers.

I like this too. Because what--children haven't had walkmen and Game Boys for decades? Do these teachers all predate that technology?

This one's my favorite, though--Mobile phones are "harming children's ability to interact with their peers"? Who exactly are they using them to communicate with? Adults? Infants?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Maybe if they woudln't ban the great playground games more kids would play..

Tag, Cowboy's and Indians, cops and robbers, tag, freeze tag, hide n seek, dodgeball, tag, army, army dodgeball...

Things rarely seen on todays playgrounds...

[Athena]

Quote by: Rinoa Humans are social animals, but if the opportunity for social interaction is not provided they do not develop the proper skills to interact with one another in a social environment. The only way to make sure that your child does is to encourage(setup) playdates with other children, and giving them non tv activities such as crafts or squirt gun fights. Without this interaction, and with the rising amount of children that are the only child in their family I'd say it is very likely for them to lack empathy. A lack of empathy causes both intolerance and selfishness.

Who is at home to parent the children? Trust I know all the good reasons for women's liberation, but there were good reasons for women staying home and being full time homemakers too. Helping the children grew up was a major reason for the mother to stay home. Children institutionalized at very early ages are likely to have bonding problems, and taking away their computers will not resolve the problem.

[Rinoa]

Athena, I actually agree with you completely, if a couple has the ability one of the parents should stay home to take care of the kids. Personally, I think that the rising crime rate has everything to do with a lack of parental involvement.

Not to say that it should only be the woman, or that a womans place is in the home...I believe women (and men) can lead effective careers and have fulfilling lives both in the workplace and in the home. I would, however, argue that in general the woman is better suited.

This one's my favorite, though--Mobile phones are "harming children's ability to interact with their peers"? Who exactly are they using them to communicate with? Adults? Infants?

It sounds contradictory, but it really isn't. They are losing the ability to interact with one another face to face. Some teens are literally to the point where even when they are sitting next to each other instead of having a normal conversation they will sit and text. So in that sense, yeah it is hurting their ability to work with one another.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Rinoa It sounds contradictory, but it really isn't. They are losing the ability to interact with one another face to face. Some teens are literally to the point where even when they are sitting next to each other instead of having a normal conversation they will sit and text. So in that sense, yeah it is hurting their ability to work with one another.

But really, is that "not interacting"? My friends and I often hang out and say nothing to each other, and that's till building the friendship.

Furthermore, is this really a new trend? I can sit next to my friend and silently read a book just as well as text message someone on a mobile phone.

Finally, IF this proves that they are alienating each other, it still doesn't prove that there has been any direct negative effect as a result. The only way to test that would be to compare the frequency of mobile phone use to bullying, sociopathic behavior, and so forth.

fushigi

[Rinoa]

Quote by: fushigi But really, is that "not interacting"? My friends and I often hang out and say nothing to each other, and that's till building the friendship.

There's a difference between talking out loud and text messaging. The type of communication and the message that is delivered is different, and both utilize different skill sets..

Furthermore, is this really a new trend? I can sit next to my friend and silently read a book just as well as text message someone on a mobile phone.

But, if you wanted to turn and speak with your friend about something you had read in the book you could. I've begun to see a lack in the ability to communicate with one another when they don't have the phone to message one another.

Finally, IF this proves that they are alienating each other, it still doesn't prove that there has been any direct negative effect as a result. The only way to test that would be to compare the frequency of mobile phone use to bullying, sociopathic behavior, and so forth.

The fact that they are alienating one another would be the negative affect. Humans need to be able to talk to one another in order to function in society. Because they are beginning to stop developing the skill of verbal communication they are going to have trouble working within the world of business, with its board meetings client meetings and constant deal working.

[Osborn F Enready]

Women, as well as men, can still work and put their children first.

Take jobs where you are only gone when the child is gone, or work for yourself.

Children are a famillial burden, not a societal burden.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Women, as well as men, can still work and put their children first.

I completely agree that it is possible. My stance is simply that it is better for the children if a parent can stay home while they are too young to be in school.

Take jobs where you are only gone when the child is gone, or work for yourself.

Again, generally only possible once the child is in school...Usually when I post about being a stay at home mom I am refering to the first six years or so.(kinderrgarden is four hours long, tops, you need to be able to drop off and pick up)

Children are a famillial burden, not a societal burden.

I'm not sure how this part applied. Care to explain further?

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said: Again, generally only possible once the child is in school...Usually when I post about being a stay at home mom I am refering to the first six years or so.(kinderrgarden is four hours long, tops, you need to be able to drop off and pick up)

Generally I would tend to agree.

Rinoa said: I'm not sure how this part applied. Care to explain further?

Sure. Having children is an act between two people, resulting in a baby. The burden is theirs, and if their respective famillies wish to help that is all the better providing the parents are accepting.

Children, are not the societies burden to bear. Societies are built around adults, laws apply to adults, children are in the "grey area" and are charged to their parents for financial and social responsibility.

I am tired of hearing this lie about it taking a "village to raise a child" or that "communities should bear the burden of education for all children" via taxation I have no choice in.

If people didn't place so much value in competing with the Jones's for "status" or "to appear wealthier" most people wouldn't be in debt, and wouldn't need two jobs to raise a child.

To many adults don't understand economics or credit, and are too quick or lazy to shrug the burdens of their own cause on society via appeals to emotion and logical fallacies implemented in legislation by life-term seeking professional politicians, who speak whichever direction the wind is blowing where they stand, and work out of the pockets of special intrests and corporate lobbyists.

Whats the best way to destroy the idea of a wholesome, responsible, trust filled family unit?

Remove the penalty for shrugging responsibility by parents and children, and offset it on the community.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Generally I would tend to agree.

Understandable, I think we are both intelligent enough to know that you have to be able to support them financially with the other spouses job before considering this, yeah?

Sure. Having children is an act between two people, resulting in a baby. The burden is theirs, and if their respective famillies wish to help that is all the better providing the parents are accepting. Children, are not the societies burden to bear. Societies are built around adults, laws apply to adults, children are in the "grey area" and are charged to their parents for financial and social responsibility. I am tired of hearing this lie about it taking a "village to raise a child" or that "communities should bear the burden of education for all children" via taxation I have no choice in. If people didn't place so much value in competing with the Jones's for "status" or "to appear wealthier" most people wouldn't be in debt, and wouldn't need two jobs to raise a child. To many adults don't understand economics or credit, and are too quick or lazy to shrug the burdens of their own cause on society via appeals to emotion and logical fallacies implemented in legislation by life-term seeking professional politicians, who speak whichever direction the wind is blowing where they stand, and work out of the pockets of special intrests and corporate lobbyists. Whats the best way to destroy the idea of a wholesome, responsible, trust filled family unit? Remove the penalty for shrugging responsibility by parents and children, and offset it on the community

I agree with that, except with the part about not wanting to pay for the basic schooling of others. Public school is as necessary as public roads. If we undereducate those that are not able to afford private schooling we are sentencing them to become even more poor creating a larger difference between rich and poor than already exists. The extremely poor(those making minimum wage...sorry, but that's just not enough to live on, full time or no) would not be able to support themselves with their jobs alone. They would end up relying on the government, or turning to petty crime. Both would drain society more than public school currently does. I will, however agree that public school here needs a serious revamp.

Also, I've always applied the logic of village to raise a child to extended family, children do need a network of people to rely on, but it should come from aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas, and sometimes a neighbor or two(that has kids), not the community as a whole.