Limits
Ah, to live on Willy Street; the temptations one will face.
We have Lazy Jane’s Café on one side of our home, and Lazy Jane’s Bakery on the other.1
In the morning, the air hangs thick with the scent of eggs, bacon, and coffee. In the evening, an aroma of dark chocolate “mud-pie” scones and morning buns is present.
The air around our home is fat with temptation, and so too would I be, if I indulged each day.
But I do not.
I have limits. Limits are good.
Within Buddhism limits are central, given the primacy of suffering.2 Yes, because we are limited we suffer. However, limits have benefits. Limits create borders. Borders are frameworks. Frameworks enable definitions. Providing form, limits enable function. This is true whether we are operating at a personal or societal level, or at a profound or mundane level.
At a level that is personal and mundane, limits on daily behavior can have all sorts of benefits.
In the case of scones, limits provide for a smoothly functioning metabolism.
If I limit myself to 1 scone a day, I will gain weight, because 1 scone a day is no limit at all. If I limit myself to 1 scone a week, I won’t get fat.
A scone becomes or remains a treat. They remain special, because they are enjoyed infrequently.
Down the block from Lazy Jane’s Bakery, at the corner of Willy & Baldwin, is the Crystal Corner Bar.3
In the case of alcohol, limits provide for a smoothly functioning mind.
If I limit myself to 7 beers a day, I will become a drunk, because 7 beers a day is no limit at all. If I limit myself to 7 beers a week, I won’t become an alcoholic.
A beer becomes or remains a treat. They remain special, because they are enjoyed infrequently.
A personal limit can, through law or custom, become a societal limit. The impact can change from mundane to profound.
At a level that is societal and profound, limits on daily behavior can have all sorts of benefits.
Society has decided that limits on alcohol consumption have benefits. Drinking and driving is illegal. In general, however, everyone is free to drink with one exception.
In the good ol’ US of A, we don't let immature people drink.
Well, OK, we do.
Actually, we don’t let children drink.
Without a functional measure of personal maturity, we proxy with age to minimize societal damage from alcohol consumption during the developmental stages of youth.
Consider: around ages 10 to 11, boys and girls begin puberty.4
This would be a bad time to give a kid a drink. I cannot think of a worse time to harm the ability of children to gain an understanding of interpersonal dynamics, let alone an understanding of the changes they themselves are undergoing physically (and mentally; our brains do not reach full maturation until ages 20 to 25).5
Everyone agrees, drunk 12 year-olds are contraindicated. They need to grow up, but not drunkenly grow up.
Are there circumstances where it is appropriate for children to drink? Absolutely; solemn religious ritual comes to mind. On average and in general, however, we discourage children from drinking because of the developmental impact.
At a level that is societal and profound, limits on daily behavior can have all sorts of benefits.
At a level that is personal and mundane, one Sunday morning, I found myself gossiping with the baker while drinking my coffee. We were discussing the new Instagram page for the Bakery and trying to decide if I wanted something or not. Actually, I always want something; I was dithering as to whether or not to have my weekly treat.
Customers came in, parents and child. The parents were attentive and engaged the baker; the young adolescent in tow was not and did not. Texting and paying more attention to their phone than their surroundings, they backed into me and muttered a weak apology. All during this time a head was bent in deference to the focus of their attention.
I have asked myself this in the past, but the question now returned with this timely catalyst.
Why do we let children so freely use social media?
More importantly, why do we let children so freely use smart phones?
I say “timely catalyst,” as I had been reading a lot on this topic lately.
The evidence is now in: social media is bad for children, and especially damaging to girls.6
Worse, the parallels between overconsumption of alcohol and social media are bothersome:
Regular overconsumption of alcohol leads to depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior.7
Regular overconsumption of social media leads to depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior.8
The above statements are true in general, but poignantly so for children.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
In 1998 Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.9
It hasn’t worked.
The original drafts of the legislation offered protections to children younger than 16,10 but changes resulted in restricting protections only to children younger than 13.
For many children, that is too low.
However, it’s not simply social media that is to blame.
If children had social media accounts, but no smart phones, they could not immerse themselves in social media 24 hours a day.
It’s impractical to whip out a laptop and check Instagram.
There is growing evidence smart phones have helped facilitate record cases of teen mental illness in the last 10 years.11 Even early on in the smart phone era, we knew delaying smart phone use was good practice for children and their development.12
We ignored our own concerns, and now here we are.
Such is the result when no one assumes responsibility for anything.
Yes, many children are able to handle social media. However, many more are engaging with social media before they are ready. The farther I cast my gaze from friends and family, who seem to have received some unwritten memo on this matter, the greater my concern.
I am completely apathetic with the behavior of adults online. Nothing surprises me anymore. However, those are adults, fully grown, mature or not. Usually, not.
Children are different.
Limits on the use of social media seem logical for immature members of society.
Without a functional measure of personal maturity, we proxy with age to minimize societal damage from social media consumption.
Our current legal consensus, however, seems wanting given the evidence now at hand, and is totally lacking for smart phones.
There are signs of some awareness and action on this matter at the state level. These signs also indicate a solution in one state may not work in another.
Utah is the first state to pass laws requiring age verification, parental consent, and time limits for children using social media. The laws are popular in Utah.13
The 2 laws passed restrict social media use for children younger than 18. That is a strict standard, stricter than even the draft 1998 COPPA Act.1415
Perhaps U.S. Federalism is our friend here. Laws on social media could reflect the dominant cultural milieu in each state. However, Utah’s response shows there continues to be no unanimity of opinion on this matter at the national level, and the Utah laws have yet to withstand Constitutional challenge.
Addressing this issue seems difficult.
Legislatively, an array of powerful actors would act in concert to oppose instituting an age limit for phones, let alone raising the legal age of access to social media, because Capitalism. That is not a condemnation of Capitalism as a system, rather an observation of its incentive structure pursued to logical conclusions.
There’s money to be made.
Societally and culturally, social pressure encourages social media use. See, and Be Seen. If you are not on social media, you are not one of the “cool kids.” Social status may decline. That is not a condemnation of Society, rather an observation of its incentive structure pursued to logical conclusions.
There’s status to be gained.
Personally, the ubiquity of social media means that, in deprecating its use, one will feel a sense of lessened online contact vis-à-vis friends and family, and a decline in the variety and volume of information sources. That is not a condemnation of People, rather an observation of their incentive structure pursued to logical conclusions.
There’s contact to be made.
Money, status, and contact are threatened by decreasing the use of social media, and that’s even before we bring up the issue of children.
The cost of addressing this issue is high.
Who is responsible?
If government, with its breadth of power we all enjoy and scope of judgement we all implicitly trust, won’t take responsibility and solve the problem, and society, with its breadth of power we all enjoy and scope of judgement we all implicitly trust, won’t take responsibility and solve the problem, then it would appear responsibility devolves to those who were already doing all the hard work anyway, the parents.
What can parents do?
Parents needs only say “No.”
Parents need only exercise their prerogative and say “No” to those aspects of social media they deem objectionable until they feel their children are ready. Or not.
Parents can
allow their children to have any social media account they desire, and use a smart phone anytime they want; or
forbid any social media and forbid any use of a smart phone; or
restrict some social media accounts and forbid others; or
limit smart phone use time; or
dictate flip phone use for safety and contact reasons, until a certain age they determine (smart phone “training wheels,” if you like).
Allow, forbid, restrict, limit, dictate, determine.
Any of these solutions can work. It depends on the child, and what the parent thinks.
It’s that simple.
It’s that simple, and that complex, and that difficult.
This is the time of Mom and Dad. It always was and is, anyway.
Maybe we can’t make parents’ work any easier, but we shouldn’t make it any harder.
Children dislike limits because freedom is curtailed. Freedom of choice does not necessarily lead to happiness, however. The “paradox of choice” means, beyond a certain point, greater choice leads to greater anxiety of a potential wrong choice.16
Parents know better.
Parents like limits because lessons can be learned and maturity can be attained. Of course, parents like limits because sometimes they simply want it to be quiet around the house.
No one is better able to judge when children are capable of handling social media than their parents.
Children need limits.
Children grow with limits.
At a level that is societal and profound, limits on daily behavior can have all sorts of benefits.
At a level that is personal and mundane, early next Sunday morning I think I’ll slip down to the Bakery, bring my coffee, and sit and sip and enjoy my dark chocolate mini-bundt with ganache and raspberries while I gossip with the baker.
After all, I only get one treat a week.
https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com; Subscribers will have received an email with recommendation