This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. A plane goes down somewhere in the Pacific. The survivors, stranded on a deserted island, are a group of schoolboys. At first, they celebrate their newfound escape from adult supervision, playing on the beach.
Then they organise. They elect one of the boys, Ralph, as their chief. Ralph and several others get a fire going. But soon the boys begin resisting Ralph's efforts to lead them.
The boys are signed to watch over the fire get distracted, and the fire goes out. They become paranoid and stalk each other's fears of a beast that convinced is stalking the island. They split into warring factions and begin attacking one another. Three of them die.
This is the story told in the 1954 novel, Lord of the Flies. It was written by an English schoolteacher named William Golding, and it reflected his harsh view of humans in general, and children in particular. The novel ends when a British naval officer lands on the island and finds the children in a ragged, feral state. The novel entered the cultural consciousness as a warning.
Without rules, systems and adult supervision, children left alone would descend into chaos. As with many generalisations, there is some truth to this. A multitude of studies suggest kids thrive when they have stability. Chaotic and unpredictable environments can bring out the worst in us.
But today we explore why the many societies have taken William Golding's warning too much to heart. If some supervision of children is a good thing, lots of parents, teachers and school administrators seem to think, more is always better. When more is less, and less is more, this week on Hidden Brain. When you're first learning to swim, it's not a good idea to be pushed into very deep water.
You could drown. But it's also not a very good idea to simply water around in the shallow. You'll never learn to swim. If you're a parent or a teacher, you're constantly asking yourself how to balance risk and safety for the kids in your care.
Tip too far in one direction, and you can put children in danger. Go too far in the other, and you deprive kids of the joy and power of exploration. At Boston College, psychologist Peter Gray studies how the balance between exploration and safety has changed for many children, and the effects this has on their minds. Peter Gray, welcome to Hidden Gray.
I'm very happy to be here. Peter, you were once at a pop-up event where the organizers provided kids with various materials, including twigs and tree branches, old boards, hammers, nails, picking a picture of the scene. Tell me what happened. There were two young children, maybe around six years old, very happily taking a couple of some of the very narrow boards and laying them out on the grass, and walking along them, like they were walking on a tightrope, and pretending that this was a very narrow bridge and there were crocodiles on either side.
It was a very imaginative game. They were clearly having a lot of fun. And the dad, I assume it was the dad, at least of one of the two, came over and said, that's not what you're supposed to do with the boards. We're supposed to be building something with the boards.
There's see, there's hammer and nails here, and then he proceeded to take the boards and to start showing the children how to pound with hammer and nails. And what I observed is that children suddenly changed, so I'm really very happy and playful to quite board as they watched their father show them how to pound nails into boards. There was another time Peter when a sixth grade teacher told you about a game that her students had invented during the COVID pandemic. What was this game?
She was feeling very bad for her sixth graders. They're still children, really. They're 11 and 12 years old at most, and they're indoors all the school day. They don't have any recess at all.
So she thought, well, wouldn't it be nice if I at least gave them half an hour to play before school start. Some of them arrived early anyway, and it turns out they arrived eagerly early when she provided that play opportunity. So she let them play in the ways that they wanted to play, and one of the games that they played, this was after COVID, was called something like infection, or maybe it was called COVID, something like that. Some of the children were infection, and if they touch somebody, you became infected and might die.
And others were called vaccine, and they could prevent you from dying by coming and touching you. It was quite an imaginative game. I have no idea how they developed, but the teacher said they were clearly having a lot of fun with that, but then one of the school administrators observed that, and she said, no, we can't have games like that going on. I've heard of many stories where recesses have been very much curtailed and limited because of rules about what you can and cannot do in play.
Peter noticed something similar in his own life. When his son was little, both of them took part in something called a Pinewood Derby. Yeah, so this was designed to promote bonding between fathers and their sons, and the boys were about eight years old at this time, and the way it works is each father's son, a kid, that includes a piece of very soft Pinewood, about seven inches long, and wheels that can be attached to the kids. And the idea is to carve the wood into something that looks like a race car and to attach the wheels, and then everybody brings them back to the next meeting of the group, and you race them down a slope.
My interpretation of this was an opportunity for children to do something a little bit risky using a knife to carve the soft wood and for fathers to help out, and that's the way we did it. I was very proud of it. He was proud of it. He painted it up himself, and showed him how to attach the wheels on, and he did that.
So I played a role kind of showing him how to do things, but then when we showed up, all the other cars were beautifully crafted. They were just so smooth, perfectly painted. And my son and I, we just almost laughed. We didn't even want...
His look like it was made by an eight-year-old, right? Yeah, and I'm assuming the car probably didn't run as smoothly as some of the other cars that had the superior craftsmanship of it. They did not run as smoothly as the others, and I think the others refrained from laughing at us, but we were embarrassed. So there's a common pattern to all of these stories, Peter.
A number of years ago, you began taking notice of what adults are doing when they interact with kids. What did you notice? In many ways, adults have taken over children's lives. I think in some sense, with good intentions, there's a lot of promotion of the idea that parents should be very much involved with their children's lives, that parents are expected almost these days, much more so than in the past, to kind of be teachers to their children, as well as comforters and nurturers and so on.
And I think the cost of that has been that it takes away from children's own initiative, from children's own opportunities to figure things out for themselves and learn how to solve problems. You write that children perceive adults as potential enforcers of safety, solvers of conflicts and audiences for whining, and this perception invites the children to act unsafly to squabble and to whine. Expand on that. Tell me what you mean.
In my experience, children actually take responsibility when there's no adults around. That's part of the advantage of there being no adults around. They have to take responsibility. If there's no adults there to tell you what to do, you've got to kind of say, well, is this safe or not safe?
Is this a reasonable thing to do or not? And children are pretty good at that. But when there's adults around, at least in this day and age, they kind of assume the adults are responsible for deciding if it's safe or not. The adults are responsible.
If somebody's teasing you instead of for you to figure out, what am I going to do about this person who's teasing me? You go and tell the adults. So even just the mere presence of adults influences the way children play. When kids are left at themselves, they don't automatically become rule breakers.
That's the way it may seem from a grownup perspective. But really Peter says, when kids play by themselves, they learn to become rule inventors. Peter learned this at a family gathering when a couple of ten year old girls invited him to join their game of Scrabble. I kind of assumed, well, this is an opportunity for me to sort of teach them about Scrabble.
I'm pretty good at Scrabble and I'm sure there are Davises. I sat down to play Scrabble with them and started to explain the rules, but they had to play the game before and went right into a game that was modeled after Scrabble, but it had their own rules. So instead of having to play an actual word, they could play any kind of a nonsense word as long as it sounded like a word and the longer and sillier it sounded the better. They had no interest in keeping score.
They were just having a great time playing nonsense words and then they would once and while challenge the other person, what's the meaning of this? And then the other one would pretend to look it up in the dictionary and cite a very funny meaning that fit a little bit with the way it sounded. I just sat back after a little bit of protest, like, hey, this is Scrabble, let's read the play Scrabble. I just finally sat back and I realized, hey, these girls are all right.
These girls are really playing. My way of playing Scrabble is a little bit more like work than like play. I understand your son Scott gave you something of a window into the effects that adults can have on children. He was not a fan of elementary school and perhaps that's putting it mildly.
Putting it mildly is like a rat. He hated school right from the beginning and he complained all the way from kindergarten through fourth grade. He would come home and be angry. He would say, you know, they're acting like I'm a puppet and I'm supposed to just do what they're telling me to do and I have no say in it.
And of course that's the way school works. I would say to him, well, just do what they're telling you to do. It's not that hard. Just do it.
All kids in some ways have conflicts with parents and teachers. And so kids are unhappy at school. They're distracted. They're bored.
They talk to their friends instead of studying or being attention to class. They run into their run-in so teachers. This is a routine part of childhood for almost all kids. What was he doing that was different?
Was it actually that garden variety kind of rebellion or was it something more than that? Yeah, I mean, his rebellion was very different from the typical, you know, naughty boy, you know, who's maybe shooting spitballs or and so on. His rebellion was almost like a planned rebellion. It was so just for example, when the teacher would teach him a specific way of doing arithmetic problems and how you're supposed to show your work, he would deliberately find a different way to do it.
And then the teacher complained to us about that and I asked him, so why do you do it a different way? And he said, it's because it's only I can make it fun. And when they were teaching about punctuation and capital letters and how to put them in the sentences, he actually declared, I'm going to right now like E. E.
Cummings, the poet, and put punctuation and capitals wherever I please. So that was him. Ultimately, it led to a meeting in the principal's office in which his teacher, the principal, assistant principal, school psychologist, another psychologist called him outside. His mom and me were all there to tell him in no uncertain terms that he had to follow the rules of the school.
And he, nine years old, looked at us, big adults, and he said, go to hell. As a dad, Peter knew something had to change. But as a researcher, he started to ask himself, is it possible the problem was not with kids like Scott, but with adults like himself? You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vaidanthe.
This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vaidanthe. When it comes to rearing happy and healthy children, when should we lend a helping hand and when should we step away and let kids figure out things for themselves? At Boston College, psychologist Peter Gray studies what adults today do and what they ought to do to maximize the well-being of children. He says an important question, parents, teachers, and school administrators should ask themselves when it comes to rules and structure is how much is too much.
Peter, you decided to start your research by delving into what anthropologists have found about child rearing practices throughout human history. What was the typical pattern before modern times? Yes, so I began to get interested in how children historically have acquired the culture that they're growing up in. Learning from others what you need to know to succeed in that culture eventually as an adult.
And I'm an evolutionary psychologist, so I look at human nature from the perspective of Darwinian evolution. If you look at human nature from that perspective, you automatically become interested in hunter-gatherers because we, uh, we're all hunter-gatherers during 99% or so of our biological evolution. And as you'll undoubtedly know, there have been hunter-gatherers in isolated parts of the world who, at least into the middle to even late 20th century, were still living in a rather pristine hunter-gatherer way of life. And there were anthropologists who had trekked out into those areas to make contact with them and study them.
And I began to read what I could of such work. And ultimately, along with the graduate student, surveyed a group of anthropologists who had studied various different groups of hunter-gatherers. And different parts of the world to find out from them what are children's lives like in the culture that they observe? What's the relationship between adults and children?
And what I found in every case, seven different cultures on three different continents, was that the children were free to play and explore pretty much all day long. They might be asked to do little chores, but no such thing as school, you know, the adults might say, don't eat these mushrooms, they're poisonous, they would point out things that are dangerous. But the assumption was that children would learn by observing, by exploring, by playing. And when I asked the anthropologist, well, what did the children play at?
They talked about play that seemed to be, in essentially every case, modeled after the activities that were important to the culture in which they were growing up. So in a culture where the manhunt big game, the little boys and middle-sized boys too, were playing a hunting big game. In a culture where they used to dugout canoes, the kids were playing with dugout canoes, and so on and so forth. They played at the games and music and art of the culture.
Not because anybody was requiring them to do so, but because it just seemed apparently natural for them to do that. And what the anthropologists pointed out is they would play at these things, and eventually they were actually doing these things. The play would merge into adult-like activities. So there was no real difference between what you're doing when you're playing and what you're doing when you're an adult actually doing this thing that you were playing at before.
So this was very interesting to me. And of course, the children would have been hanging out with a range of other children, probably of different ages. Presumably they would be learning not just from children who are exactly their own age, but from children who are a little older. And those children might have learned things from children who are a little older than them.
That's a very important observation that these are all banned cultures. So they're relatively small. Even if you wanted to just hang out with kids your own age, there wouldn't be enough. So you're always playing with kids who are both older and younger than yourself.
So a typical play group might be kids from age 4 to 12 or age 8 to 16, all playing together. But when children are playing across age, the younger children are always learning from the older children. They're being boosted up to higher levels of activity. And the older children are in very important ways learning from younger children.
They're learning how to be leaders, they're learning how to be caretakers. They're learning in some sense how to be teachers as they're explaining to the younger children how to do whatever it is that they're doing. So you only suggest that when adults leave children alone to play and learn and socialize in their own way, kids become more likely to develop a range of skills, like what Peter? I could really run through all of the basic skills that children have to develop in any culture in order to succeed.
These are social skills, these are the skills of knowing how to initiate an activity and direct that activity, problem solving skills. Children practice these skills when they're playing and when they're playing with other children. When adults are around, adults step in and solve the problems for the children. The adults tell them how to play and that children therefore are not learning how to take initiative, not learning how to create rules for themselves, not learning how to negotiate with other children to solve problems.
If there's always an adult there, doing it for them. In some ways I suppose all of this points back to the central thing that children need to learn, which is to learn to be independent, perhaps we're taking that away from them. That's well put because again from an evolutionary perspective, when we even have this long period of childhood, what is the purpose of the juvenile period as we would say in all mammals? It is to develop the skills that allow you to become increasingly independent.
But the only way you can develop those skills is by being allowed increasing amounts of independence as you are growing older from year to year. That used to occur in our culture. That was certainly true when I was a child many decades ago, and it was even true when my son was a child few decades ago. But today we are not allowing children to do the things that they should be doing, that they're capable of doing for a variety of reasons.
But the end result is that children are more or less supervised, directed, monitored, corrected all the time. You say that when children spend a lot of time in the company of adults, they're less likely to participate in what you call authentic communication. And they're more likely to do this when they're in the company about the children. What do you mean by this term Peter?
Let me refer to a research study that was done some time ago. These researchers recorded children's voices while they were playing with other children. These were young children, probably five or six years old, and then also recorded them when they were in class talking with their teacher and also recorded them when they were just sitting around having lunch. When they were playing, the language was far more sophisticated, far more real, far more authentic than in any other situation.
Because when you're playing with other kids, you're constantly negotiating. Maybe picture a group of young children playing that they're going to the Kings Ball. Who's going to marry the prince? And so then there's a discussion about that.
Who gets to wear this beautiful set of necklaces that you find in the dress-up corner of the kindergarten room? So there's constant, they spend more time negotiating and discussing what they're doing than actually playing it out, which is a good thing. Because think of what they're learning when they do that. They're learning this incredibly important skill of being able to use words, language, to decide mutually what they're doing as a group.
How are we going to play this game? You say that when kids interact with adults, they don't get the same kind of authentic feedback that they get when they're interacting with other children. Can you give me some examples of what you mean by this? Well, sometimes it's just ridiculous.
You'll hear a parent or an adult say to a child. So Billy, what color is that? Oh my gosh. This is so patronizing.
It's as if the purpose of the discussion is always kind of pedantic to try to teach the child something rather than an actual, authentic, back and forth discussion. And I suppose also there is some pressure that parents and teachers feel to give positive feedback. So when the four-year-old comes back with us cribble on a page, there is some pressure to say this is a masterpiece. Yes, unlike kids.
I'll give you what I think is a nice example of this. One of the situations where I was observing age mix play and how seven to eight-year-old children playing car games with children who are somewhat older. And I was observing how the older children would keep the younger children on task. And they would say things like, hey, stupid, pay attention.
This is not what a typical parent today would say. But the kids, I think, actually, the little kids, I think appreciated that because this is genuine coming from an older kid. This kid is not trying to patronize you in some way. You also say that in the course of playing, children come to understand that rules, in fact, are invented things.
They are things that have been invented by other people and that they can be modified and changed. And it's harder to do that if you believe that rules are sacrosanct and handed down to you by an all-powerful adult. One way to think about this is the difference between, let's say, Little League Baseball and Pickup Game of Baseball, the way we used to play it when I was a kid. We'd other be a bunch of kids who'd show up in the vacant lot and there was never 18 players.
We had to kind of figure out how we're going to make up the sides. We had to create round rules, anything, you know, hidden in the direction, those windows over there. That's an automatic out and so on. Have to pitch soft to Little Timmy.
We'd make up all the rules so that it'd be fun for everybody and fair for everybody. This is just the way kids always play. Little League, you play by the official rules of baseball. You don't vary them.
You just do it. And there's adults there making sure you follow those rules. You see that one reason adults are less inclined to give children the freedom they used to have is that adults are increasingly concerned about their children's safety. When did the sphere arise be there and how does it affect the lives of children?
So when I was a kid many decades ago, the regular song of parents was, get out of the house. Get out of the house. I don't eat around. So kids were outdoors and they'd find one another and they'd play with one another.
This was not just the 1950s and 1960s America. This is the way hunter-gatherer children played as I described before. This is the generally the way children throughout the world have played. And so this is a new thing in some sense in the history of the world where we are not allowing children independent activity away from adults.
We've got adults around them all the time. We're talking a little bit about the concern for safety and sort of the concern that many parents have that if they were to give kids the kind of freedom that they had before, the bad things could happen to them. Yeah, so if you ask parents why they're not allowing their children outside, you'll get a variety of answers. Some of them are quite legitimate.
One of them is well there's nobody else outside and so my child goes outside to play. There's nobody to play with. Or I've heard of this case recently in our neighborhood where somebody let their child out to play with other children and somebody called the police and then protective services arrived. So the culture has changed such that you are considered to be a negligent parent if you allow your child outside without observing that child.
Now why did the culture change? And I think that the biggest change occurred in the 1980s. There were a couple of cases of young boys. In both cases there were six years old.
One of these instances occurred actually in 1979 and the other in 1981 who were taken by a stranger on the street and ultimately murdered. This is of course a very rare event and because it's rare it made headlines. It was in the news all the time and it led to programs trying to protect, make sure that this doesn't happen again. And among those programs was to put pictures on milk cartons of missing children.
And the assumption was that when you were eating your breakfast cereal and looking at this milk carton that these missing children were people little kids who had been snatched away by some stranger on the street and the whole concept of stranger danger was developed. And once a person has this image in their head it's hard to get it out of your head. So it leads to a belief that the world is more dangerous than it actually is. The truth of the matter is the world is not more dangerous today than it was decades ago.
It's also the case that families are having fewer children today. This is not just in the United States. It's in many countries around the world. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that parents who have many kids love their children any less than parents who have few kids.
But it is certainly the case that I think parents direct more attention to their kids now in part because families are smaller and that's driven by demographic and economic changes that are probably well beyond the control of any individual. I think that is definitely a contributing factor. When you have more kids you're more likely to want some of them out of the house. If not all of them out of the house.
And houses have gotten bigger too. When you've got a small house and a bunch of kids you don't want them all hanging around the house. You see that another reason adults have intruded in their children's lives is that increasingly many adults feel they need to prepare children for a very competitive world. Talk about this idea of you.
Yes, I think we have become over time increasingly concerned about our children's competitiveness. We in the United States were a competitive culture to begin with. And the other thing that's happened I think really ever since about 1980 there's been continuous growth in the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. And there's actually research indicating that when the gap between rich and poor is great parents become increasingly anxious about their children's future.
Especially as the job market changes in ways that most parents don't necessarily understand and are kind of unpredictable and there's a lot of pressure on kids and creates a more competitive schooling environment than was present before. You say that there are serious consequences of depriving children of unstructured and unsupervised play. What are the effects of excessive adult supervision on the social, emotional and intellectual development of children? Over the same decades that we have been gradually decreasing children's opportunities to play independently of adults.
We have seen a continuous rise in anxiety and depression and tragically even suicide among school aged kids. So of course that correlation doesn't by itself prove a cause and effect relationship but that's the first step for believing. Well maybe the fact that children are not playing and exploring and doing things independently. Maybe that's why they are so anxious, so depressed, so unhappy, so lacking in the resilience that we wish they would have.
Now there's both theoretical reasons and empirical reasons for believing that there is this cause-effect relationship. Can you tell me a little bit about that? What is the evidence? So let me begin with just the theoretical part.
Play makes children happy. We don't have to prove that, right? Play is what makes children happy. It's also the case of other kinds of independent activities.
Children feel good. They feel proud when they can do things by themselves. It gives you a sense of confidence and so on. So you take that away from children and write off.
They're going to be less happy. A famous play researcher Brian Sutton Smith who died a few years ago and he used to say the opposite of play is depression. And I think in a sense he's right that if you take away play from people they're going to be depressed. But in addition to that, what research shows is that when children are playing and doing other things independently, they are acquiring the skills and the sense of agency, the sense of what psychologists call an internal locus of control.
That leads them to recognize that they can solve problems. They can deal with the bumps in the road of life. You're dealing with that when you're playing. Somebody's bullying you a little bit and instead of a parent or an adult solving the problem, you figure out how to solve that problem or you get hurt and you figure out what to do about it or you get lost and you find your way home.
All of these are the kinds of experiences that children throughout history have always experienced and it's how they learn. I can deal with problems. I don't have to be afraid of the world because I can solve these problems. But if we're not allowing children to do that, they don't develop this internal sense of control.
That sets you up to be anxious and if it goes too far it sets you up to be depressed, a sense of hopelessness about the world. So those are the theoretical reasons. The empirical reasons come from a whole range of other kinds of studies that show that those children who do have more opportunity for independent play are doing better psychologically than those who have less. Do you think there are any positive speed out of the increased involvement of adults in children's lives?
You could point to some positive changes. There are fewer teenage traffic accidents because fewer teenagers are driving. There's actually less sex among teenagers than in the past. So historically in many ways we might regard it as a good thing.
There are fewer sexually transmitted diseases among young people. There's fewer unwanted pregnancies and so on than in the past. So some people point to those things as positive developments that have occurred from the fact that there's much more adult involvement in children's lives. When we come back, how to balance the imperatives of exploration and safety?
You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.
Peter Gray is a psychologist at Boston College. He's the author of Free to Learn, why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant and better students for life. Peter, you've laid out some of the problems that arise from a present-day approach to parenting and education. You say that we can get a glimpse of what a healthier culture of childhood would look like by turning to the past.
What was your own childhood like, Peter? I was a kid in the 1950s, which was a time where a lot of kids moved a lot, but I found I made friends very quickly because all I had to do was to go outdoors and I would find other kids. And certainly by the time I started school, I was walking to school by myself, I was everybody else. When Peter turned five, his family moved from Minneapolis to a small town in southern Minnesota.
Job number one for little Peter, find new friends. I remember my mother saying, well, why don't you just go door to door, knock on the doors and ask if there are any children there, your age. So I did that all by myself, door to door, and it turns out that right across the street, the mom came to the door and I said, do you have any children who are about my age? And she said, yes, I've got a daughter, Ruby Lou.
And so Ruby Lou came to the door and we went out to play and Ruby Lou very quickly became my best friend. Tell me a little bit about her. What would you do together? So Ruby Lou was a little bit older than me.
She started school before I did, but it's probably just the difference in when her birthday was. And she was kind of bolder than I was. I was kind of a shy kid in some ways, a little bit of fried of heights and so on. But she was a great tree climber.
She showed me how to climb the trees and I would, she would challenge me to climb higher and higher in the trees. I think that the story that I remember best is that she had a bicycle. I at that point did not have a bicycle. And I was really eager to learn how to ride a bicycle.
So she said, well, I'll teach you how to ride a bicycle. So it turns out the street between her houses was on a small slope. And so she said, well, the easiest way to learn how to ride a bicycle was start at the top of the slope and give yourself a push. And then you just start pedaling and go as far as you can go and see if you can go a little farther every time.
What wonderful instructions for how to ride a bicycle. And so I did that. And her bike was a girls bike, which made it easier to learn because I didn't have to swing my leg up over that bar. And so she taught me how to ride a bicycle.
Then once I could ride a bicycle, I convinced my parents to buy me a secondhand bike. She and I would take bicycle trips all around town. And my mother said, it's fine for me. I could buy myself.
I had to stay within the town limits on the bike. But with Ruby Lou, it would be okay to go wherever we wanted because she assumed Ruby Lou was wiser and a little older and smarter than I was. I think she was. And we could go places together.
I understand you played a lot of sports, but these were not like the adult organized sports teams that we have today. Yeah, so the kids were all into baseball there. And we would just get together whenever we could on the vacant lot, whatever kids were around, and we create our own baseball games. And so each team had to sort of choose their own player to who would kind of be the coach, who would decide, you know, who's going to play what positions and so on and so forth.
And for some reason, even though I was one of the youngest players, the players chose me on my team to be the coach. So that meant that I was the one who had to remind people when the games were. I had to decide who was going to pitch. Everybody wanted to pitch.
So I had to figure out some rotating way to please everybody. I mean, the biggest challenge, of course, you have in a situation like this is you want everybody to stay on the team. You want everybody to keep everybody happy. And it was kind of a very much an adult like responsibility to manage this team.
When I was, I suppose I would have been about eight years old at that time. But there were no adults never came to these games. You know, the only adult involved was probably was a teenager who would be an umpire there who would call balls and strikes and fall fair and fall. And that's what made it different from our pick up games.
I mean, it would be hard to imagine an eight or nine year old in charge of a little league baseball team today. That's right. This is a change in our expectations. It's not a change in what people are capable of biologically, but it's in other cultures and other culture.
He would not be surprised by something like this. That eight year old could take that kind of responsibility. Now, clearly it was a different time, a different era, but you have some suggestions on how we might bring back an element of playfulness into children's lives in our present day. And you see that parents can ask a simple question to their children that could get the ball rolling.
What is this question, Peter? What is something that you really would like to do that you feel you could do, but you'd like to do on your own and initiate that conversation? See what the child says. And maybe the child will say, well, you know, I'd like to be able to ride my bicycle all by myself to my friend's house.
Or maybe the child will say, I actually like to cook dinner. But now the child is asking the parent is having this discussion. And the idea would be to reach some kind of a kind of agreement. Well, okay, you can do this.
And it may not be exactly what the child's asking for, but something that the parent thinks is okay. So that kind of breaks into this cycle where you sort of change the discussion. It's not now just about safety. It's now about balancing safety with an acknowledged value in independent activity.
And an acknowledgement that what the child wants to do is actually important. You see that parents can also work with other like-minded adults to make space and time for lightly supervised play. How would this work? This has actually occurred in some neighborhoods.
I wish it occurred more. Or some parent, or maybe more than one parent, have decided, you know, we really would like our children to have more opportunities to play without us intervening. We remember our own experiences as children and what we benefited from play. We need to provide this for our children.
How can we do it? And so one strategy is to get together with the neighbors who have kids. And if you say, all right, every Saturday, we're all going to send our kids out and keep your devices inside. We're going to send you out.
But they're all going out. If some of the parents are concerned about safety, we'll have one adult out there just for safety. In my opinion, ideally that adult is a grandparent because I find that grandparents tend to be a little less likely to intervene than parents are. But the understanding would be that that adult is like a lifeguard on an ocean beach.
Only there in case there's some kind of real danger, but not to tell the children how to play or to solve minor problems. And so there are a few neighbors who have done that, including some that have actually got the city to close off the streets if it's a busy street during that period of time when it's playtime. And once the kids are playing together and they get to know one another, then they may find other ways to play during other times as well, other than just the formerly chosen one. Peter says schools can also play a role in promoting play.
He has been working with schools around the country to create play clubs. And what play club is is an hour of free age mix play, usually in elementary schools, all the grades combined. So it's age five through 11, roughly all combined, all playing together. Usually it is before school, but sometimes after school.
And so this takes a little bit of effort on the part of the school. They have to have somebody there to manage it. And the teachers who monitor play club are advised, taught really, not to solve little quarrels, not to tell the children how to play better, not to worry if somebody looks unhappy. The whole purpose of play is for children to learn how to solve their own problems.
For the schools that have adopted this, this has been very successful. So Peter, you say that much of this boils down to a question of trust. To the willingness that adults have to trust their children that left to their own devices, they're going to spend their time in positive and productive ways. Can you talk about this idea that at its core, there's an emotional element here that if parents actually trusted their kids to do the smart thing and to do the right thing, they might be less interested in engaging or intervening constantly in their children's lives.
Really what we're talking about here is to what degree do you as a parent feel that you need to control your child? And to what degree do you feel you can trust your child to do what is good for the child themselves without you controlling? So really ultimately what I mean by a trustful parent is one who trusts the child's developmental processes and allows those developmental processes to occur, which really means allowing the child to play, to explore, ask questions of adults when they want to ask those questions and all of that, to do the things that children by nature want to do. In your work, you recount a remarkable story that is a kind of real life version of the novel, A Lot of the Flies.
The story was unearthed by a Dutch historian, Ruttker Braggman. Tell me that story. There was a real case in the 1960s of a group of school boys about the same age as the fictitious children in Lord of the Flies, living in a Pacific island. They ranged in age from 13 to 16 and they had decided they were tired of school, they were at a boarding school and they called it borrowing, but they basically stole a fishing boat.
And they weren't really very good sailors, so they went off into the ocean aimed at another island that they wanted to get to, but a big storm came up and they ended up shipwrecked on inhabited island. And nobody found them for 15 months. Unlike in Lord of the Flies, these kids took care of themselves. They did not war with one another.
They recognized, you know, our lives are in danger here. They figured out how to find food, they figured out what's edible, what's not edible. They actually planted a garden, they created a garden in case they were there for a long time. They always had one child on watch for passing ships to try to flag them.
One of the boys broke a leg and the kids figured out how to set the leg to protect it and it actually healed up. They took care of one another in a remarkable way. They survived. And so this is a story that's the exact opposite of the fiction, Lord of the Flies.
Peter Gray is a psychologist at Boston College. He's the author of Free to Learn, why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant and better students for life. Peter, thank you for joining me today on Hidden Brain. Thank you very much for having me on.
Do you have follow-up questions for Peter Gray about children, play and independence? If you'd be willing to share your question with a Hidden Brain audience, please record a voice memo and send it to us at ideasatthiddenbrain.org. 60 seconds is plenty. That email address again is ideasatthiddenbrain.org.
Use the subject line, play. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Annie Murphy-Paw, Kristen Wong, Laura Cordell, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick and Nick Woodbury. Tara Boyle is our Executive Producer.
I'm Hidden Brain's Executive Editor. We end today with a story from our sister podcast, My Unsung Hero. It's brought to you by T-Mobile for Business. Our story comes from River Adams, who uses they, them, pronouns.
In 1991, at the age of 19, River and their family came to the US as Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union. Though the family received a small amount of support from welfare and food stamps, it wasn't nearly enough to survive on. So River and their older sister tried to apply for jobs, but neither spoke much English. For the first several months, no one would hire us because we couldn't pass an interview.
We didn't even understand the simple questions the employers were asking. So the four of us were always hungry. Our diet consisted almost entirely of macaroni with ketchup, discounted manager's special bananas, and the cheapest cereal we could find, which was fruit loops. But still, there was never enough of these foods either.
Then in the summer of 1991, my sister and I were hired to work at Roy Rogers. It was a fast food chain that was very common then, and they specialized in fried chicken. And the manager who hired us, he did us a kindness just by giving us the job, because we were still really not with it. And all I remember about this man is that his name was Ed.
So the work was hard, but being hungry and surrounded by all this food was harder. We couldn't afford any of it. When other workers bought their meals during breaks, we didn't eat. And I think after a while Ed realized the financial situation we were in, and he began to help us.
We worked the evening shift. So after we would close and clean the restaurant, Ed would put the leftover fried chicken into a bucket and give it to us to take home to our family. And for the first time in months, the four of us ate, didn't go to sleep hungry, and suddenly we had hope that we would survive. Of course, we didn't understand then that Ed was breaking the rules by giving us this food.
I doubt that Ed remembers us, but he is a hero in our family. And we mention his name often and with utmost warmth. I doubt he knows that these two new immigrants that he once hired and fed remember him as the first American who was kind to us. He's the man who saved us.
Listen to River Adams of Malboro, Massachusetts. River went on to become a pianist, medical interpreter, and author. Today's Mayan Sanjiro's story was brought to you by T-Mobile for Business. Thanks for listening.
I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon.