Tech wizzes as do low tech parenting?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Well for one, they were raised in a time where tech was limited, and being smart realized that by keeping certain things limited to their kids allows for greater creativity and inspiration.
 
Oops. That should be "tech wizzes do low tech parenting". The only thing I find weird/ hypocritical about it is who's doing the low tech parenting (while making a fortune on high tech - even apps for kids - and encouraging the use of high tech gadgets in just about every facet of society for everyone else - which one could argue is draining inspiration and creativity from others in many ways but they will say otherwise to promote their products and, yet, are wise enough not to lead their own kids into the same trap).
 
I don't find it hypocritical - good parents set limits & boundaries, utilize age appropriate activities etc. That's what I see in this article.
 
Kimmio said:
Oops. That should be "tech wizzes do low tech parenting". The only thing I find weird/ hypocritical about it is who's doing the low tech parenting (while making a fortune on high tech - even apps for kids - and encouraging the use of high tech gadgets in just about every facet of society for everyone else - which one could argue is draining inspiration and creativity from others in many ways but they will say otherwise to promote their products and, yet, are wise enough not to lead their own kids into the same trap).
Click to expand...

George Cohon has made a fortune from McDonald's. My guess is that he fed his kids some fruits and vegetables - and not a steady diet of big macs and fries.
 
I also doubt that big Tobacco execs encourage their children to smoke tobacco.

I suspect that it is often difficult to find truly ethical work.
 
The article doesn't say they don't allow their kids to use it, just that it's limited.
 
Kimmio said:
Oops. That should be "tech wizzes do low tech parenting". The only thing I find weird/ hypocritical about it is who's doing the low tech parenting (while making a fortune on high tech - even apps for kids - and encouraging the use of high tech gadgets in just about every facet of society for everyone else - which one could argue is draining inspiration and creativity from others in many ways but they will say otherwise to promote their products and, yet, are wise enough not to lead their own kids into the same trap).
Click to expand...


Just because you sell the gadgets does not mean you're in favour of their unlimited, unrestrained use. Nothing weird or hypocritical about teaching your children to use their tech responsibly, even if you are the one making money off the tech. In fact, I wish it had been more publicized because it would be nice if someone like Jobs or Gates or (if he and Priscilla eventually have kids) Zuckerberg could become a role model for parents trying to teach their kids how to live with technology.
 
Yeah, smart parents educate and participate with their kids and grok that everything they do isn't a passive thing

Part of what parenting is, I think, is helping to humanize their young humans, to take them from their initial sociopathic 'creature from the Id' state and help them to become moral & ethical beings...

Which means learning by making mistakes...the boo-boos that hurt, the rejections, the falling off of a bike, accidentally creating the plague in your home replicator, etc etc

What tends to worry Conservatives (and religious conservatives) is letting people do whatever just 'cause' without careful consideration and thought, fears over such things as howmowsexual mawwige and legalizing pot...

What tends to worry Liberals (and religious liberals) is stifling their kids and expression...
 
Last edited:
I have yet to hear of a person who is a tech or a tech engineer who doesn't suggest that there be good balance.
I guess that I am on the same page as others, i don't see why this is an unexpected response.

I often also see high performance / controlling parents put controls on their kids that I find excessive.
I'm not sure it is always the right thing. Only time will tell.
 
Mendalla said:
Just because you sell the gadgets does not mean you're in favour of their unlimited, unrestrained use. Nothing weird or hypocritical about teaching your children to use their tech responsibly, even if you are the one making money off the tech. In fact, I wish it had been more publicized because it would be nice if someone like Jobs or Gates or (if he and Priscilla eventually have kids) Zuckerberg could become a role model for parents trying to teach their kids how to live with technology.
Click to expand...
Maybe they didn't want to be role models for responsible parenting re:tech because that might cost them money if parents are not fully endoctrinating their kids early - better for their pocket books, and their empires, to keep it quiet! They did not just get rich being tech whizzes, they got rich being (and consulting with) marketing whizzes. Plus, it keeps their own kids in the upper echilons of wisdom while everyone else blindly follows what's being marketed to them as it quietly takes over. Social Darwinism for the priveledged class?...it did occur to me and it probably occured (although I can't be sure) to the person who wrote the article because they too found it curious enough to write the article.
 
Last edited:
BetteTheRed said:
I also doubt that big Tobacco execs encourage their children to smoke tobacco.

I suspect that it is often difficult to find truly ethical work.
Click to expand...
Oh, they probably do encourage their kids to smoke one way or another, so although smoking is bad for health, they are not being hypocrities. Most of the big tobacco execs probably smoke....but if they didn't...that would be highly hypocritical. It would be better parenting but still hypocritical. It would be the very definition of hypocritical. I am struggling with some hypocrisies of my own right now (believing in peace, non-violence, deploring ISIS and wanting people protected from them, for example.."just war" never made sense to me, except against the "really bad guys", like the Nazis, and now ISIS...as protection not retaliation...I don't believe in retaliative war at all...conversation on another thread...I should continue it there)...but I just found it interesting that Steve Jobs and others kept their kids protected from their own products while kids in schools can't leave their damn cell phones alone, they are using ipads and laptops in classrooms, etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure those who produce, advertise, etc. Tylenol also take steps to prevent any of their children from overdosing on it.
 
ChemGal said:
I'm sure those who produce, advertise, etc. Tylenol also take steps to prevent any of their children from overdosing on it.
Click to expand...
Sure but the "dosage" that Jobs and others promote(d) to other peoples' kids through thir media and mega-marketing effort is different than the dosage they would promote to their own kids. Not so with Tylenol. Simply read the label. Dosage is on there by law.
 
Kimmio said:
Sure but the "dosage" that Jobs and others promote(d) to other peoples' kids through thir media and mega-marketing effort is different than the dosage they would promote to their own kids. Not so with Tylenol. Simply read the label. Dosage is on there by law.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen good evidence of that. I haven't noticed an iLife being marketed to kids. I think society has been dictating some of the marketing as well - people started using cellphones in various places for more than just the important calls before I noticed marketing for that type of use.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
Maybe they didn't want to be role models for responsible parenting re:tech because that might cost them money if parents are not fully indoctrinating their kids early - better for their pocket books, and their empires, to keep it quiet! They did not just get rich being tech whizzes, they got rich being (and consulting with) marketing whizzes. Plus, it keeps their own kids in the upper echilons of wisdom while everyone else blindly follows what's being marketed to them as it quietly takes over. Social Darwinism for the priveledged class?...it did occur to me and it probably occured (although I can't be sure) to the person who wrote the article because they too found it curious enough to write the article.
Click to expand...
indoctrinating, privileged (Sorry- spelling!!! I hate it when it's too late to fix it after I notice it, then check it like I should have done in the first place...)
 
ChemGal said:
I haven't seen good evidence of that. I haven't noticed an iLife being marketed to kids. I think society has been dictating some of the marketing as well - people started using cellphones in various places for more than just the important calls before I noticed marketing for that type of use.
Click to expand...
Gadgets are addictive and kids are getting hooked early, whether it's through game apps or talking books or whatever...even if they are age appropriate they are not healthy to be wired up to 24/7. Addiction dictated the marketing too. But noone was warned that they were addictive- because they were marketed and necessary "tools"- and now they are just commonplace.
 
Kimmio said:
Gadgets are addictive and kids are getting hooked early, whether it's through game apps or talking books or whatever...even if they are age appropriate they are not healthy to be wired up to 24/7. Addiction dictated the marketing too. But noone was warned that they were addictive- because they were marketed and necessary "tools"- and now they are just commonplace.
Click to expand...
I think people should be responsible for displaying some common sense. Moderation is typically best for most things. I don't think an iPad is addictive itself, it's things that can be accessed via it, many that have nothing to do with Apple.
 
It's not just Apple of course...but Apple have enabled apps to be purchased at the istore that are addictive, etc. Kids start with one app and move onto others. Recently I read that that Google has placed age/ permission limits or something like that, on kids purchasing their apps. That's a start ( and has more to do with parents upset at kids racking up the bill)...but what I am saying is technology is taking over...and the tech giants are having their kids read real paper books, still, while in other homes kids may not be reading real books, just ebooks, and if it is the same thing and there is no harm in it...you would think Jobs and others would not limit it. You've got to wonder about that... I think it won't be too long before physical libraries start to disappear, and kids won't be able to write their own names with a pen because they won't be taught to in school ( those who have full use of their hands...not kids with disabilities who need technical aides), and a pen costs less than $.50. An ipod/ laptop costs hundreds, and ebooks cost quite a bit...and there are copyright laws for "sharing" that are not the same for lending books from a library. So it is a bit of trap is it not? Maybe you are not seeing it. I think they did see it - but didn't want everyone else to see it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top