I feel for you. In our house computer games, like Minecraft, began to consume all our children's (12 and under) time and attention --- they wanted to do absolutely nothing else. So, we made a rule, no computer games, except on what my wife and I called "Technology Tuesdays." At first the going was really tough, but it seems to have worked. The children now enjoying playing computer games on Tuesday (which turns out to be only a few hours after school on Tuesday), but are back to pursuing other interests the rest of the time.

On the other hand, for truly educational content, like Khan Academy, they have unlimited access.

I grew up with a softer rule... gaming limited to an hour, unless it was something I created.

The bad things about these kinds of rules, around this age, is that it provides strong incentive for kids to learn to lie and hide things from you.

Just curious, what's with the rule? Also, do they know how to code already?

And how would they possibly create a good game without playing one?

The rule excludes video games at the childrens house. The rule says nothing about playing video games at a friends house or board games etc. at home.

poor kids

I wasted most of my youth sitting in front of the TV, I don't want that to happen to my own children. I'd rather them do something more constructive with their time.

Do you like the person you are now? How do you know TV didn't help shape that person.

There is wisdom to be had in learning first hand why a bad thing is bad, rather than just being told it is forbidden.

There's little value in introspection if there's no frame of reference.

Could you expand on this comment? It seems to agree with what I said.

Yes, it does :)

The thought process was that it's hard for me to _know_ why drugs are bad other than what I've been told and other outside knowledge sources (anecdotes, wikipedia pages, etc). However, wasting time on videogames is something I do often, so I can draw from my own experience in what is "too much" and what the deleterious effects are. It's a much more valuable lesson, because I know exactly what my situation is instead of trying to place myself in a hypothetical.

> There is wisdom to be had in learning first hand why a bad thing is bad, rather than just being told it is forbidden.

If people believed that, drug law would have a three-strike policy. So you see why I'm skeptical when people say what you just said.

Maybe you really believe what you said but don't fool yourself into thinking you live in a society that does too, because we don't.

I think it might be useful to distinguish between playing video games and breaking drug laws.

Tell that to the person that conflated the two when they said:

> There is wisdom to be had in learning first hand why a bad thing is bad, rather than just being told it is forbidden.

"a bad thing" is a variable. It's generic enough that it allows for both "playing video games all day" (which is a bad thing) and racist drug laws (which are also in the same category of bad things).

That's why I said people that say that usually don't believe it, as you've just shown. When it comes time to test that hypothesis by filling in the "a bad thing" blank, then you want to change the rules and say "well not EVERY bad thing, racist laws aren't bad in the same way playing games all day is".

If that's the case, then just don't say silly generalizations like "there is wisdom in learning why bad is bad"; instead, think before you say something, so we can have constructive conversations, and not conversations where your side is always backtracking and changing the meaning of basic things such as "a bad thing".

Because when you say "there is wisdom in learning why bad is bad" you make it sound like there is an underlying principle you believe in, but when I come in and test if you really have that belief, then it becomes clear you just wanted to make it sound like you had a principle behind it, but really you just winged it and pretended there was a principle, and when confronted about it, instead of admitting and saying "I shouldn't have phrased it as if I thought it's a principle", you want to argue with me how there really are two different categories called "a bad thing" where "playing games all day" and "racist drug laws" can't co-exist because you said so, without providing a reason.

>If that's the case, then just don't say silly generalizations like

The context of our conversation was video games. No koan, maxim or quote contains the unquestionable logical truth in all applications.

Ultimately your video game restriction might not even matter. If the kid goes through any kind of teenage rebellion from your strict rules, that will be a "bad" wisdom gaining experience itself. The only real choice you might be making is whether to deal with confrontation in small doses or in one major flame out.

Rather than banning it completely, why not set some limits? Also kids learn by modding existing games, see the recent Minecraft / Visual Studio news.

I agree, wasting time on shooters probably isn't a good idea, but there are very good story driven games (monkey island type of games) or strategy games (sim city etc) that kids could get inspired by.