Treating the ‘hacker win’ as a different value may facilitate conversation

For all the negotiation, limit-setting, and figurative tight-rope walking that has made up parent-child relations throughout the storied history of child raising, it’s doubtful that any cultural phenomenon has threatened the reservoir of respect available between parent and child like the ‘hacker win’ has.

As the name suggests, the ‘hacker win’ typically involves the deployment of a ‘whatever it takes’ mentality to effectively break through a technological wall or barrier that had been put in place to enforce a limit or protect something of value.

We’ve all heard the term ‘workaround’? A ‘hacker win’ is a hepped up, nothing-stands-in-the-way version of a workaround, and one so celebrated by many youth as a kind of ‘tech-related’ merit badge— it is commonly deployed by children of parents who installed a control or pulled a plug to curb the type or quantity of video game play.

Worn out from the less severe tools of negotiation like stickers, consequences, rewards-for-chores, screen time limits, pay-for-grades, and even written contracts— parents ultimately, and often reluctantly, change Wi-Fi passwords, purchase expensive control systems or unplug routers, any of which can set the figurative sparks flying through their households.

Feeling ‘bested’ over the ‘last straw of negotiation,’ it’s understandable how such parents might see the whole process as one big exercise in disrespect, but what if the ‘take no prisoners’ approach in hacking the system were simply an indication of a different, closely held value by the video gaming child?

Perhaps it would be less likely parent & child will huff off into their “respective corners”, and there would be a greater chance a real conversation breaks out.

In a book titled: I Never Thought of it That Way: How to Have Furiously Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, author Monica Guzman’s work is directed at the vast, polarized political divide many have identified in the U.S., but it might also apply to household video gaming, given the perceptions of it between parent & child can be so starkly different.

Today’s parental Gen Xers— raised during a time when exhaling sharply was interpreted as a sign of disrespect by their Silent Generation parents— can be excused if they see themselves as having already bent over backwards in negotiating on gaming limits.

On the other hand, it’s hard to find fault with the Xers’ Gen Z gaming kids, who’ve been so programmed to win at all costs by gaming creators their cyber-survival depends on it— thus laying the basis for a ‘hacker’ workaround.

With these two disparate views, you now have the makings of a small-d-donnybrook that might even make the well-reasoned Guzman put up her arms in despair.

But going by Guzman’s logic, dialing down the level of contentiousness a parent and child have reached by the time a hacking attempt occurs might begin with a commitment to non conversion and a good dose of curiosity.

To elaborate, the parent would start from a place where they are not trying to force any outcome onto their child. Then from this place of acceptance, the parent commences a curious dialogue designed to learn more about why the gaming activity is so crucial for the gamer to continue.

Only when the gaming child believes the parent isn’t trying to will him over to his or her side can productive dialogue ensue, particularly when the authoritative parents perpetually lets a “What might I be missing?” question drive his side of the conversation.

With the verbal tug-of-war toned down to allow each side to be heard, and curiosity constantly pushing back at the parent’s tendency to prematurely decide, Guzman describes five elements of a conversation that will optimize the chance of reaching agreement.

These are:

1. Time: A sufficient amount of this forms trust, allows for depth, and helps people explore the boundary between their perspectives.

2. Attention: The more undivided and engaged, the more fully people can be present with the other person in conversation.

3. Parity: “Staying on level ground” literally and figuratively enhances the chance for meaningful work.

4. Containment: Maintaining confidentiality (during and after the conversation) increases the chances of genuine exchange.

5. Embodiment: Speakers who synch their facial & body language, volume, pace and tone with their voice get more meaning into their words— which is best done through in-person interaction.

   With these interpersonal guidelines and reminders in place, here’s hoping you have a breakthrough in an area of communication you may have visited so many times, you are at a loss for what to try next, especially as your patience grows increasingly thin.
   
   Whatever progress you do or do not make in preventing the next ‘hacker win’ by your gamer, you are not alone in the challenges you face amid the responsibilities you have to shoulder.

   All the best to you out there— Feel free to comment on this topic as your experience and suggestions may help others facing the same issue!