Thank you Zach and Jon for being at the forefront of this conversation.
As a parent of a middle schooler, and director of a device-free summer camp for teenagers for over 25 years, I feel like I’ve been on the front lines of a battle. We’ve been outgunned for such a long time, but now there are some heavy hitters on our side. For the first time in my career, we’re seeing movement in the right direction, and I’m not getting called a Luddite derisively(although I’m kind of proud of the label).
[29] If the hive switch is real— if it's a group-level adaptation designed by group-level selection for group binding— then it must be made out of neurons, neurotransmitters, and hormones. It's not going to be a spot in the brain— a clump of neurons that humans have and chimpanzees lack. Rather, it will be a functional system cobbled together from preexisting circuits and substances reused in slightly novel ways to produce a radically novel ability. In the last ten years there's been an avalanche of research on the two' most likely building materials of this functional system.
[30] If evolution chanced upon a way to bind people together into large groups, the most obvious glue is oxytocin, a hormone and neurotransmitter produced by the hypothalamus. Oxytocin is widely used among vertebrates to prepare females for motherhood. In mammals it causes uterine contractions and milk letdown, as well as a powerful motivation to touch and care for one's children. Evolution has often reused oxytocin to forge other kinds of bonds. In species in which males stick by their mates or protect their own offspring, it's because male brains were slightly modified to be more responsive to oxytocin.
[31] In people, oxytocin reaches far beyond family life. If you squirt oxytocin spray into a person's nose, he or she will be more trusting in a game that involves transferring money temporarily to an anonymous partner. Conversely, people who behave trustingly cause oxytocin levels to increase in the partner they trusted. Oxytocin levels also rise when people watch videos about other people suffering— at least among those who report feelings of empathy and a desire to help. Your brain secretes more oxytocin when you have intimate contact with another person, even if that contact is just a back rub from a stranger.
[32] What a lovely hormone! It's no wonder the press has swooned in recent years, dubbing it the "love drug" and the "cuddle hormone." If we could put oxytocin into the world's drinking water, might there be an end to war and cruelty? Unfortunately, no. If the hive switch is a product of group selection, then it should show the signature feature of group selection: parochial altruism. Oxytocin should bond us to our partners and our groups, so that we can more effectively compete with other groups. It should not bond us to humanity in general.
[33] Several recent studies have validated this prediction. In one set of studies, Dutch men played a variety of economic games while sitting alone in cubicles, linked via computers into small teams. Half of the men had been given a nasal spray of oxytocin, and half got a placebo spray. The men who received oxytocin made less selfish decisions— they cared more about helping their group, but they showed no concern at all for improving the outcomes of men in the other groups. In one of these studies,
oxytocin made men more willing to hurt other teams (in a prisoner's dilemma game) because doing so was the best way to protect their own group. In a set of follow-up studies, the authors found that oxytocin caused Dutch men to like Dutch names more and to value saving Dutch lives more (in trolley-type dilemmas). Over and over again the researchers looked for signs that this increased in-group love would be paired with increased out-group hate (toward Muslims), but they failed to find it. Oxytocin simply makes people love their in-group more. It makes them parochial altruists. The authors conclude that their
6
findings "provide evidence for the idea that neurobiological mechanisms in general, and oxy-tocinergic systems in particular, evolved to sustain and facilitate within-group coordination and cooperation."
This battle is real. You are in a war that is a different drug. It takes more than a device free camp. Although they are wonderful memory makers. My husband did that as well for as many years as he could. Could be the same camp. How ironic. Please read my story and comment way below posted just after 9 am .
Going to a sleep-over summer camp for 3 weeks from the age of 8-18 changed my entire perception of the world, gave me life skills, and life-long relationships. I would be a completely different person, maybe not even still alive, if not for the skills I learned there. Mother Nature is our greatest teacher, and best parent.
My teens went to a 3 week completely screen-free (even ipods and kindles!) summer camp this past summer and it was life altering in a good way. I just wish there was one for me.
From your father's perspective, this was fantastic. I dont argue that. Well done. I'm sure your children will never forget. But why isn't this for Moms and kids or Moms and Dads with their kids and families? My husband took my boys to a church camp every summer in upper Michigan by boat for what sounds similar. The time they had will be a great memory. It had a great purpose.
As a mom, I was happy my husband made the effort. It became an annual ritual. One I felt deprived of. Moms and children need this, too. Moms and dads need this. Families need this—even those with brokenness. We weren't broken by the smartphone (yet). I wanted the experience. Lord knows we needed the reflection and bonding. That time did not change the smartphone's influence as a lasting replacement when the camp was over. Read my valid story in the replies below. What you did was terrific. However, smartphone technology was still a part of my life upon my return. Their dad was more attached to a smartphone the rest of the year. There wasn't quality time left over. We all felt his work came before us. They would have to wait until next year's camp. As baby boomers, we are accountable for the smartphone's negative impact.
This is why I hate when phone and screen reliance is blamed on the parents (usually the mother). I have never met a parent that has not felt some level of guilt, shame, and anxiety over their child's phone and/or screen use. Some feel less guilt than others, but it's always there. We all agree that it's bad, it's great that progress is being made.
But on the point that parents are still not letting their children go outside and be free, I think there are some points being missed. It's not all about anxiety, our communities have changed in ways I have not seen highlighted in The Anxious Generation or anywhere else.
Here's the story of my childhood. Picture it, the early 1990's. Small town in the Midwest. My parents are a single income family. They bought a cute home on a quiet street full of young families. They have 2 kids, as do most families in our neighborhood. They live in the same town where they grew up, with family (they were baby boomers so they had loads of siblings) all around.
My mom could let me roam the neighborhood. If my sister didn't want to play, I could easily find kids. They weren't always outside, anxious parents existed back then too, but I could just knock on the door and find a playmate. They were always home because they had a parent or a grandparent who didn't work.
My mom knew these families because she grew up in the town and also because she regularly volunteered at my school with other parents and grandparents.
If a friend lived far away, I could give them my phone number at school and we'd call each other. I had my home phone number memorized by the time I was in kindergarten, practicing by reciting it for the video rental clerk.
My child's experience? We live on a street with NO young families. It's all retirees who complain about how there USED to be kids on the street 40 years ago, but young people don't want to live there anymore. The truth is, young families are still struggling to afford homes. My child doesn't have a sibling because we simply could not afford it. I do not live in the town where I grew up because my partner and I couldn't find jobs there, so now we have few connections. I don't know many people in my community because the schools no longer accept volunteers. I join committees, but families are busier than ever before. Both parents work, the grandparents can't retire, and kids are in activity after activity because millennial parents know the threat of job scarcity.
My son has no phone number to give to his best friend at school. There is no phone book for me to use to find his family's number. Every school break he misses his best friend, but I have no way of arranging a playdate.
I wish my son could have a childhood like mine. It's not anxiety keeping me from giving it to him. If I could drop him off at the mall with a little money and a friend, I would. But our mall is dead and his friends are too busy and isolated.
I think blaming it all on anxiety and safteyism ignores some of the systemic problems facing families right now.
Yes! This really resonates, and I so appreciate how you’re naming the structural issues at play. I’m a mom in Switzerland, and in our town, things are very different. My four-year-old goes out most days with a mixed-age group of kids and comes home for meals. He knows how far he can go, and there’s a shared understanding among families about where the kids are. It works because the environment is designed for that kind of independence. My twin toddlers still need constant supervision (age 1), but I suspect they'll join the group around age 3 or 4.
But I have family in the US and Canada, and I see firsthand how hard it is to recreate anything like this. The car culture, the distances, the lack of public gathering spaces, the disappearance of extended family networks. It all adds up.
It’s not about blaming individual parents, especially mothers. It’s about reimagining how we live. How we design communities, support parents, and give kids the freedom to grow in safe, connected ways. I’m honestly in awe of how North American parents manage in such isolating conditions. It’s so intense, and the expectations on parents, especially around child care and constant supervision, are enormous.
This conversation is so important. Thank you for starting it.
Absolutely! I believe that I picked up a book about parenting like they do in Switzerland at some point and had to rage quit. Of course, it sounded lovely! I would love for my child to spend his days with neighborhood friends, or to take him to a park while I get a coffee at the Cafe across the street. Spinning a narrative that parents like me don't do those things simply because we're afraid isn't going to bring about the change needed to get childhood back for our kids.
I hope you don't mind me continuing the conversation, but what you said about isolation really got me thinking. I'm heading to my son's second grade field trip today as a chaperone. Except, so many parents volunteered and paid to come on the trip that I am only chaperoning my own child.
Yes, almost every parent of a second grader in my school district took off work today to personally escort their child on their school field trip.
I have to come, my child has a disability that makes riding a bus for long periods difficult. But other parents? Why? It was the same in first grade when we went to the zoo.
Jon Haidt, as much as I respect his work on kids and smart phone use, might say it was safetyism. He might say that these parents are so afraid that their child will be aducted or injured on this trip that they feel that they must come to personally supervise.
I don't think these parents are afraid that their child will be abducted on the science museum on a school trip. I think that this behavior from parents is bred from isolation.
Because they may know the teacher, at least sort of, but they don't know the other parents. They aren't afraid that a volunteer chaperone is going to abduct their kid, but they can't predict how their kid is going to do with a total stranger in charge of them for an entire day. I don't think it makes you an over anxious parent to want to know who is going to be around your kid.
So they themselves volunteer to chaperone and so does everyone else who can.
So now we're headed on a school field trip that will separate the kids into their own family units. Isolation breeds more isolation.
Isn't that wild? My heart hurts because I want my child to have the experience of a field trip. I have to make certain choices because of his needs, but it boggles my mind how parents of neurotypical children parent exactly as I do. It's a cultural thing. Pointing to parental anxiety and parietal choices doesn't address the root cause.
I totally hear you on the frustration with some of those idealized portrayals. It is one thing to describe how things could be, but quite another when those examples feel out of reach or come across as critiques of individual parents rather than the systems we are all navigating. That is not helpful, and I get why you would want to quit the book.
I also deeply resonate with what you said about isolation. Yes, fear plays a role in how childhood has changed, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. It is not just fear of the world outside. It is fear that comes from not having relationships within our communities. Not knowing the other adults, not having shared expectations, not having built up the kind of social trust that lets you say, “Sure, my kid can go with them for the day.”
And I wonder if part of what you are pointing to is loneliness. Not just being structurally isolated, but emotionally too. Parenting without peers, without a strong sense of community, without knowing the other parents around you. When that kind of connection is missing, it makes sense that the only thing that feels safe is going yourself.
Where I live now, I know almost everyone who lives in the physical space around us on a superficial level, and they know us. That alone creates a baseline of trust. When the environment is designed to make those kinds of relationships possible, it is easier to let kids go a little further. It is not about being a more relaxed or brave parent. It is about having enough backup, both social and structural, to feel like the world is holding your kid with you.
Your example about the field trip is powerful. When every parent feels like they need to personally show up, that says so much about how much pressure families are under, and how little support they feel around them. It is not just “safetyism” but also a reflection of a disconnected world that places so much responsibility on individual parents, (usually mothers).
If we want to give kids more freedom, we cannot just tell parents to let go. We have to rebuild the conditions that help them feel held.
“ If we want to give kids more freedom, we cannot just tell parents to let go. We have to rebuild the conditions that help them feel held.”
YES! Beautifully said! Thank you for helping me expand on my thoughts and feelings. I kept thinking, “am I off base here? Isn't lack of trust just a manifestation of fear and anxiety?” But what you said about loneliness makes sense. When you lack the information, when you lack the shared expectation, when you lack a relationship, you will naturally lack trust. That's not a manifestation of fear, that's a manifestation of disconnection.
Yes, exactly. What you’re describing: lack of information, no shared expectations, no real relationships isn’t just about fear in the usual sense. It’s what happens when the social fabric is thin. Trust doesn’t emerge in a vacuum. It comes from repeated interactions, from seeing the same faces, from knowing that others see your kid as part of the collective.
And I think that’s what often gets missed in conversations about “letting go.” It’s not just about a parent’s mindset. It’s about whether the environment offers enough structure, familiarity, and support to make letting go feel like a real option. Without that, the default is vigilance, even if no one’s explicitly afraid.
It’s not anxiety as pathology, it’s a rational response to disconnection. But we are touching on much deeper social issues and these are much less sexy. Technology and its use are just a piece of the puzzle.
Anyways… bed time here! I’ve really enjoyed thinking about this with you.
Your book has had a profound impact on my family. Less technology, more fun and free play. We've also instituted family reading after dinner each night. For 45-60 minutes, we turn off all screens (adults too) and sit and read in our living room. It was a little rocky to get by in by the older kids at first, but they are there. Life does not have to be dominated by technology. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Thanks so much for your writing. This feels like one of those rare cultural moments where momentum is finally on the side of common sense—and courage. What struck me most is how deeply the shift has been driven not by institutions or influencers, but by ordinary parents rediscovering their collective voice. It’s a powerful reminder that cultural change doesn’t begin with perfect legislation or top-down reform—it begins with conviction at the ground level, turned into action. Here's hoping that continues to spill over into other areas as well.
The four norms outlined here are simple, but they crack the door open to something much deeper: a restoration of real childhood, real human connection, and maybe even real hope. Thank you again for writing with clarity and conviction. The urgency is real, but so is the opportunity.
I’m a father of two daughters. Reading this book I recognized all the effects of smartphones in my own home. It’s time to take action and bring our kids to real life again.
Our group of parents had been advocating for phone-free schools for years with no traction. Then your book came out and it’s like everyone changed their minds overnight. The district passed a new policy that same year. Thank you!!! Could not have done it without you.
Wow, that was so creative and well said for all to understand and get it. Thank you for sharing your poem and thoughts. I would love a copy. It resonated with my own story below. 😞 We watched and felt this thing we call technical advancement destroy life as we knew it.
Thank you!! I'm a grandparent who's kids just missed the tragedy of such technology but now witnessing the challenges with grandkids. Two general comments (1) adults must role model the desired change in behaviours. Too often one sees supervising adults as deeply consumed in the phone/computer with kids watching (2) civic design must look to all opportunities to build community spaces for play....for everyone! Space to come together and heaven forbid talk to each other.
Thanks for helping make it socially acceptable to say smartphones and social media aren't for kids! Time to get the word out about tablets and screen time in schools too!
I generally agree with you on the bipartisan/politically neutral nature of this movement. It is really nice to see, and inspiring, that we still have some unity with each other.
This is a bit of a personal pet peeve, but the one part of restoring the play-based childhood that does seem to be politically coded is about traffic. The biggest thing holding back parents in my neighbourhood here in Toronto from letting kids explore, play, ride bikes is the aggression and speed of drivers. My peer group of parents are many times more worried about their kid being run over by a truck than they are about any kind of abduction.
Cars are literally 2-3x as powerful as they were in the 1950s (especially in the affordable-car range), and bumper heights are far, far higher.
We were finally starting to see some real moves toward more complete streets that would allow more kids to play outside. That is all reversing with the right-wing swing of politics here. They’re tearing half the bike lanes out in Toronto this summer, including one that was only built in 2024 🤦🏼♂️
That’s the problem. This was easy when powerful cars and SUVs with high bumpers just weren’t available. Once they become available, it’s a tragedy of the commons. Everyone is incentivized to drive a huge powerful vehicle for their _own_ family (they really are more survivable in a crash, you can haul all kinds of stuff easily…) but the net result is an arms race and streets where I don’t feel comfortable letting my 9 year old ride her bike outside without me next to her.
But people also hate complete streets, bike lanes, speed limits, raised intersections etc. As I said, we’re now ripping out bike lanes here, just a few years after most of them went in.
One thing you can do if your kid already has a smartphone is to install Family Link. From there, you can basically turn your phone into a flip phone by restricting the use of apps you don't want your kid to use. Or you can give your kid, say, 40 minutes per day to use YouTube and other apps, and after that time has run out, they can only take photos and call friends. I have tried this and can easily say that it works fine!
This movement has real merit, but from a socioeconomic perspective, it risks becoming another marker of privilege. Families with time, money, and safe neighborhoods can more easily delay phones, enforce screen limits, and encourage free play. But for many working-class or single-parent households—especially in unsafe or under-resourced areas—phones serve as essential tools for supervision, education, and connection. What’s missing from the movement is a parallel push for policy: safe public spaces, affordable after-school care, community tech alternatives, and supports that make “real-world childhood” accessible for all—not just those with the means to opt out of digital life.
My kids use my smart phone to talk to their cousins 3000 miles away and they play video games together. Not sure how that’s ruining their childhood but must be nice to have your family all in one place
The is so encouraging to hear! Let’s leave this phone-infested childhood in the past, gone the way of lead paint and cigarettes. Keep fighting the good fight everyone!
Thank you Zach and Jon for being at the forefront of this conversation.
As a parent of a middle schooler, and director of a device-free summer camp for teenagers for over 25 years, I feel like I’ve been on the front lines of a battle. We’ve been outgunned for such a long time, but now there are some heavy hitters on our side. For the first time in my career, we’re seeing movement in the right direction, and I’m not getting called a Luddite derisively(although I’m kind of proud of the label).
America needs to be "Crop dusted" with oxytocin!
see chapter =HIVE SWITCH re oxytocin [THE RIGHTEOUS MIND]
THE BIOLOGY OF THE HIVE SWITCH
[29] If the hive switch is real— if it's a group-level adaptation designed by group-level selection for group binding— then it must be made out of neurons, neurotransmitters, and hormones. It's not going to be a spot in the brain— a clump of neurons that humans have and chimpanzees lack. Rather, it will be a functional system cobbled together from preexisting circuits and substances reused in slightly novel ways to produce a radically novel ability. In the last ten years there's been an avalanche of research on the two' most likely building materials of this functional system.
[30] If evolution chanced upon a way to bind people together into large groups, the most obvious glue is oxytocin, a hormone and neurotransmitter produced by the hypothalamus. Oxytocin is widely used among vertebrates to prepare females for motherhood. In mammals it causes uterine contractions and milk letdown, as well as a powerful motivation to touch and care for one's children. Evolution has often reused oxytocin to forge other kinds of bonds. In species in which males stick by their mates or protect their own offspring, it's because male brains were slightly modified to be more responsive to oxytocin.
[31] In people, oxytocin reaches far beyond family life. If you squirt oxytocin spray into a person's nose, he or she will be more trusting in a game that involves transferring money temporarily to an anonymous partner. Conversely, people who behave trustingly cause oxytocin levels to increase in the partner they trusted. Oxytocin levels also rise when people watch videos about other people suffering— at least among those who report feelings of empathy and a desire to help. Your brain secretes more oxytocin when you have intimate contact with another person, even if that contact is just a back rub from a stranger.
[32] What a lovely hormone! It's no wonder the press has swooned in recent years, dubbing it the "love drug" and the "cuddle hormone." If we could put oxytocin into the world's drinking water, might there be an end to war and cruelty? Unfortunately, no. If the hive switch is a product of group selection, then it should show the signature feature of group selection: parochial altruism. Oxytocin should bond us to our partners and our groups, so that we can more effectively compete with other groups. It should not bond us to humanity in general.
[33] Several recent studies have validated this prediction. In one set of studies, Dutch men played a variety of economic games while sitting alone in cubicles, linked via computers into small teams. Half of the men had been given a nasal spray of oxytocin, and half got a placebo spray. The men who received oxytocin made less selfish decisions— they cared more about helping their group, but they showed no concern at all for improving the outcomes of men in the other groups. In one of these studies,
oxytocin made men more willing to hurt other teams (in a prisoner's dilemma game) because doing so was the best way to protect their own group. In a set of follow-up studies, the authors found that oxytocin caused Dutch men to like Dutch names more and to value saving Dutch lives more (in trolley-type dilemmas). Over and over again the researchers looked for signs that this increased in-group love would be paired with increased out-group hate (toward Muslims), but they failed to find it. Oxytocin simply makes people love their in-group more. It makes them parochial altruists. The authors conclude that their
6
findings "provide evidence for the idea that neurobiological mechanisms in general, and oxy-tocinergic systems in particular, evolved to sustain and facilitate within-group coordination and cooperation."
This battle is real. You are in a war that is a different drug. It takes more than a device free camp. Although they are wonderful memory makers. My husband did that as well for as many years as he could. Could be the same camp. How ironic. Please read my story and comment way below posted just after 9 am .
Going to a sleep-over summer camp for 3 weeks from the age of 8-18 changed my entire perception of the world, gave me life skills, and life-long relationships. I would be a completely different person, maybe not even still alive, if not for the skills I learned there. Mother Nature is our greatest teacher, and best parent.
My teens went to a 3 week completely screen-free (even ipods and kindles!) summer camp this past summer and it was life altering in a good way. I just wish there was one for me.
From your father's perspective, this was fantastic. I dont argue that. Well done. I'm sure your children will never forget. But why isn't this for Moms and kids or Moms and Dads with their kids and families? My husband took my boys to a church camp every summer in upper Michigan by boat for what sounds similar. The time they had will be a great memory. It had a great purpose.
As a mom, I was happy my husband made the effort. It became an annual ritual. One I felt deprived of. Moms and children need this, too. Moms and dads need this. Families need this—even those with brokenness. We weren't broken by the smartphone (yet). I wanted the experience. Lord knows we needed the reflection and bonding. That time did not change the smartphone's influence as a lasting replacement when the camp was over. Read my valid story in the replies below. What you did was terrific. However, smartphone technology was still a part of my life upon my return. Their dad was more attached to a smartphone the rest of the year. There wasn't quality time left over. We all felt his work came before us. They would have to wait until next year's camp. As baby boomers, we are accountable for the smartphone's negative impact.
This is why I hate when phone and screen reliance is blamed on the parents (usually the mother). I have never met a parent that has not felt some level of guilt, shame, and anxiety over their child's phone and/or screen use. Some feel less guilt than others, but it's always there. We all agree that it's bad, it's great that progress is being made.
But on the point that parents are still not letting their children go outside and be free, I think there are some points being missed. It's not all about anxiety, our communities have changed in ways I have not seen highlighted in The Anxious Generation or anywhere else.
Here's the story of my childhood. Picture it, the early 1990's. Small town in the Midwest. My parents are a single income family. They bought a cute home on a quiet street full of young families. They have 2 kids, as do most families in our neighborhood. They live in the same town where they grew up, with family (they were baby boomers so they had loads of siblings) all around.
My mom could let me roam the neighborhood. If my sister didn't want to play, I could easily find kids. They weren't always outside, anxious parents existed back then too, but I could just knock on the door and find a playmate. They were always home because they had a parent or a grandparent who didn't work.
My mom knew these families because she grew up in the town and also because she regularly volunteered at my school with other parents and grandparents.
If a friend lived far away, I could give them my phone number at school and we'd call each other. I had my home phone number memorized by the time I was in kindergarten, practicing by reciting it for the video rental clerk.
My child's experience? We live on a street with NO young families. It's all retirees who complain about how there USED to be kids on the street 40 years ago, but young people don't want to live there anymore. The truth is, young families are still struggling to afford homes. My child doesn't have a sibling because we simply could not afford it. I do not live in the town where I grew up because my partner and I couldn't find jobs there, so now we have few connections. I don't know many people in my community because the schools no longer accept volunteers. I join committees, but families are busier than ever before. Both parents work, the grandparents can't retire, and kids are in activity after activity because millennial parents know the threat of job scarcity.
My son has no phone number to give to his best friend at school. There is no phone book for me to use to find his family's number. Every school break he misses his best friend, but I have no way of arranging a playdate.
I wish my son could have a childhood like mine. It's not anxiety keeping me from giving it to him. If I could drop him off at the mall with a little money and a friend, I would. But our mall is dead and his friends are too busy and isolated.
I think blaming it all on anxiety and safteyism ignores some of the systemic problems facing families right now.
Yes! This really resonates, and I so appreciate how you’re naming the structural issues at play. I’m a mom in Switzerland, and in our town, things are very different. My four-year-old goes out most days with a mixed-age group of kids and comes home for meals. He knows how far he can go, and there’s a shared understanding among families about where the kids are. It works because the environment is designed for that kind of independence. My twin toddlers still need constant supervision (age 1), but I suspect they'll join the group around age 3 or 4.
But I have family in the US and Canada, and I see firsthand how hard it is to recreate anything like this. The car culture, the distances, the lack of public gathering spaces, the disappearance of extended family networks. It all adds up.
It’s not about blaming individual parents, especially mothers. It’s about reimagining how we live. How we design communities, support parents, and give kids the freedom to grow in safe, connected ways. I’m honestly in awe of how North American parents manage in such isolating conditions. It’s so intense, and the expectations on parents, especially around child care and constant supervision, are enormous.
This conversation is so important. Thank you for starting it.
Absolutely! I believe that I picked up a book about parenting like they do in Switzerland at some point and had to rage quit. Of course, it sounded lovely! I would love for my child to spend his days with neighborhood friends, or to take him to a park while I get a coffee at the Cafe across the street. Spinning a narrative that parents like me don't do those things simply because we're afraid isn't going to bring about the change needed to get childhood back for our kids.
I hope you don't mind me continuing the conversation, but what you said about isolation really got me thinking. I'm heading to my son's second grade field trip today as a chaperone. Except, so many parents volunteered and paid to come on the trip that I am only chaperoning my own child.
Yes, almost every parent of a second grader in my school district took off work today to personally escort their child on their school field trip.
I have to come, my child has a disability that makes riding a bus for long periods difficult. But other parents? Why? It was the same in first grade when we went to the zoo.
Jon Haidt, as much as I respect his work on kids and smart phone use, might say it was safetyism. He might say that these parents are so afraid that their child will be aducted or injured on this trip that they feel that they must come to personally supervise.
I don't think these parents are afraid that their child will be abducted on the science museum on a school trip. I think that this behavior from parents is bred from isolation.
Because they may know the teacher, at least sort of, but they don't know the other parents. They aren't afraid that a volunteer chaperone is going to abduct their kid, but they can't predict how their kid is going to do with a total stranger in charge of them for an entire day. I don't think it makes you an over anxious parent to want to know who is going to be around your kid.
So they themselves volunteer to chaperone and so does everyone else who can.
So now we're headed on a school field trip that will separate the kids into their own family units. Isolation breeds more isolation.
Isn't that wild? My heart hurts because I want my child to have the experience of a field trip. I have to make certain choices because of his needs, but it boggles my mind how parents of neurotypical children parent exactly as I do. It's a cultural thing. Pointing to parental anxiety and parietal choices doesn't address the root cause.
I totally hear you on the frustration with some of those idealized portrayals. It is one thing to describe how things could be, but quite another when those examples feel out of reach or come across as critiques of individual parents rather than the systems we are all navigating. That is not helpful, and I get why you would want to quit the book.
I also deeply resonate with what you said about isolation. Yes, fear plays a role in how childhood has changed, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. It is not just fear of the world outside. It is fear that comes from not having relationships within our communities. Not knowing the other adults, not having shared expectations, not having built up the kind of social trust that lets you say, “Sure, my kid can go with them for the day.”
And I wonder if part of what you are pointing to is loneliness. Not just being structurally isolated, but emotionally too. Parenting without peers, without a strong sense of community, without knowing the other parents around you. When that kind of connection is missing, it makes sense that the only thing that feels safe is going yourself.
Where I live now, I know almost everyone who lives in the physical space around us on a superficial level, and they know us. That alone creates a baseline of trust. When the environment is designed to make those kinds of relationships possible, it is easier to let kids go a little further. It is not about being a more relaxed or brave parent. It is about having enough backup, both social and structural, to feel like the world is holding your kid with you.
Your example about the field trip is powerful. When every parent feels like they need to personally show up, that says so much about how much pressure families are under, and how little support they feel around them. It is not just “safetyism” but also a reflection of a disconnected world that places so much responsibility on individual parents, (usually mothers).
If we want to give kids more freedom, we cannot just tell parents to let go. We have to rebuild the conditions that help them feel held.
“ If we want to give kids more freedom, we cannot just tell parents to let go. We have to rebuild the conditions that help them feel held.”
YES! Beautifully said! Thank you for helping me expand on my thoughts and feelings. I kept thinking, “am I off base here? Isn't lack of trust just a manifestation of fear and anxiety?” But what you said about loneliness makes sense. When you lack the information, when you lack the shared expectation, when you lack a relationship, you will naturally lack trust. That's not a manifestation of fear, that's a manifestation of disconnection.
Yes, exactly. What you’re describing: lack of information, no shared expectations, no real relationships isn’t just about fear in the usual sense. It’s what happens when the social fabric is thin. Trust doesn’t emerge in a vacuum. It comes from repeated interactions, from seeing the same faces, from knowing that others see your kid as part of the collective.
And I think that’s what often gets missed in conversations about “letting go.” It’s not just about a parent’s mindset. It’s about whether the environment offers enough structure, familiarity, and support to make letting go feel like a real option. Without that, the default is vigilance, even if no one’s explicitly afraid.
It’s not anxiety as pathology, it’s a rational response to disconnection. But we are touching on much deeper social issues and these are much less sexy. Technology and its use are just a piece of the puzzle.
Anyways… bed time here! I’ve really enjoyed thinking about this with you.
This.
👆🏼👆🏼
Your book has had a profound impact on my family. Less technology, more fun and free play. We've also instituted family reading after dinner each night. For 45-60 minutes, we turn off all screens (adults too) and sit and read in our living room. It was a little rocky to get by in by the older kids at first, but they are there. Life does not have to be dominated by technology. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Thanks so much for your writing. This feels like one of those rare cultural moments where momentum is finally on the side of common sense—and courage. What struck me most is how deeply the shift has been driven not by institutions or influencers, but by ordinary parents rediscovering their collective voice. It’s a powerful reminder that cultural change doesn’t begin with perfect legislation or top-down reform—it begins with conviction at the ground level, turned into action. Here's hoping that continues to spill over into other areas as well.
The four norms outlined here are simple, but they crack the door open to something much deeper: a restoration of real childhood, real human connection, and maybe even real hope. Thank you again for writing with clarity and conviction. The urgency is real, but so is the opportunity.
I am sad that my generation and my children now adults paid the enormous price. I am happy however that this is uniting us a a nation and world .
I’m a father of two daughters. Reading this book I recognized all the effects of smartphones in my own home. It’s time to take action and bring our kids to real life again.
Our group of parents had been advocating for phone-free schools for years with no traction. Then your book came out and it’s like everyone changed their minds overnight. The district passed a new policy that same year. Thank you!!! Could not have done it without you.
Congratulations on the tremendous movement The Anxious Generation has spearheaded!
The next, more challenging, step will be to bring back parents from phones.
May I share a poem of mine on this topic?
https://keithcutter.substack.com/p/when-life-is-true?r=16nbbo
Wow, that was so creative and well said for all to understand and get it. Thank you for sharing your poem and thoughts. I would love a copy. It resonated with my own story below. 😞 We watched and felt this thing we call technical advancement destroy life as we knew it.
Thank you Lehman. Message me with your email and I'll send you a copy of the poem.
I have not figured out how to manover this site. Thank you. I am following you.
Thank you for sharing your poem, it’s well done, accurate and timely.
Awesome, but not done. If it's bad for kids, time to take a look at everybody. Pretty sure this is the tobacco of our day.
Before I die, I hope to see casual smartphone use in public understood to be as rude and stupid as smoking.
Thank you!! I'm a grandparent who's kids just missed the tragedy of such technology but now witnessing the challenges with grandkids. Two general comments (1) adults must role model the desired change in behaviours. Too often one sees supervising adults as deeply consumed in the phone/computer with kids watching (2) civic design must look to all opportunities to build community spaces for play....for everyone! Space to come together and heaven forbid talk to each other.
Thanks for helping make it socially acceptable to say smartphones and social media aren't for kids! Time to get the word out about tablets and screen time in schools too!
I generally agree with you on the bipartisan/politically neutral nature of this movement. It is really nice to see, and inspiring, that we still have some unity with each other.
This is a bit of a personal pet peeve, but the one part of restoring the play-based childhood that does seem to be politically coded is about traffic. The biggest thing holding back parents in my neighbourhood here in Toronto from letting kids explore, play, ride bikes is the aggression and speed of drivers. My peer group of parents are many times more worried about their kid being run over by a truck than they are about any kind of abduction.
Cars are literally 2-3x as powerful as they were in the 1950s (especially in the affordable-car range), and bumper heights are far, far higher.
We were finally starting to see some real moves toward more complete streets that would allow more kids to play outside. That is all reversing with the right-wing swing of politics here. They’re tearing half the bike lanes out in Toronto this summer, including one that was only built in 2024 🤦🏼♂️
In Wales we have moved the speed limit down to 20mph in urban area. It's saved a lot of lives and we're a tiny country. It is massively unpopular.
That’s the problem. This was easy when powerful cars and SUVs with high bumpers just weren’t available. Once they become available, it’s a tragedy of the commons. Everyone is incentivized to drive a huge powerful vehicle for their _own_ family (they really are more survivable in a crash, you can haul all kinds of stuff easily…) but the net result is an arms race and streets where I don’t feel comfortable letting my 9 year old ride her bike outside without me next to her.
But people also hate complete streets, bike lanes, speed limits, raised intersections etc. As I said, we’re now ripping out bike lanes here, just a few years after most of them went in.
It’s just a hard problem.
I agree that the bipartisanship on this issue is a nice benefit. Turns out common sense isn't quite dead.
One thing you can do if your kid already has a smartphone is to install Family Link. From there, you can basically turn your phone into a flip phone by restricting the use of apps you don't want your kid to use. Or you can give your kid, say, 40 minutes per day to use YouTube and other apps, and after that time has run out, they can only take photos and call friends. I have tried this and can easily say that it works fine!
This movement has real merit, but from a socioeconomic perspective, it risks becoming another marker of privilege. Families with time, money, and safe neighborhoods can more easily delay phones, enforce screen limits, and encourage free play. But for many working-class or single-parent households—especially in unsafe or under-resourced areas—phones serve as essential tools for supervision, education, and connection. What’s missing from the movement is a parallel push for policy: safe public spaces, affordable after-school care, community tech alternatives, and supports that make “real-world childhood” accessible for all—not just those with the means to opt out of digital life.
My kids use my smart phone to talk to their cousins 3000 miles away and they play video games together. Not sure how that’s ruining their childhood but must be nice to have your family all in one place
The is so encouraging to hear! Let’s leave this phone-infested childhood in the past, gone the way of lead paint and cigarettes. Keep fighting the good fight everyone!