On Technology, The Kids Aren’t Alright
This good news needs to be tempered, of course, with common sense. Young people need to maintain a healthy balance between online interaction and face-to-face activities (even here the research shows that the former is driven by the healthy need for the latter). Parents are obligated to develop and maintain open dialogue with their child around trust and transparency. Fear should not govern our instincts or hinder the need to empower our young people with the appropriate uses of digital media.
At the root of Mike Crowley’s piece are two points I very much agree with:
- That parents need to maintain healthy, prudent relationships with their children and maintain an open dialogue that critically examines technology.
- That the media embellishes and sensationalizes the truth in order to instill fear and drive viewership. Hence “Why Social Media Will Kill Us All” type headlines.
However, his use of Yalda Uhls’s conclusions are quite frightening. There is no “tiny minority” of individuals addicted to technology because we have no agreed standard for what that addiction actually is. That’s because we’re bringing up children natively in the experience. They don’t question it. They are born into it.
In a society where one third (33%) of men between the ages of 18 and 30 either “think that they are addicted or are unsure if they are addicted to pornography” and 77% of Americans have a smart phone (95% have a cell phone in general), that “tiny minority” in an abuse of the english language.
Think the proliferation of smart phones doesn’t lead to addiction? Look at the shrinking free time as time spent on mobile grows and time spent on desktop/other remain consistent. Where is leisure time going? Right to our screens. Is it only addiction if we admit it’s bad?
I haven’t even addressed the physiological factors.
- “It makes no difference in memory, comprehension, nor critical thinking whether you read materials on screen or paper.”
Study after study shows that reading comprehension and mathematics DO suffer when performed on screens or using multi-modal learning, as compared to using books. Ziming Liu, a library science professor at San José State University performed a study in 2003 which demonstrated as much:
The findings, said Liu, indicate that “the digital environment tends to encourage people to explore many topics extensively, but at a more superficial level,” and that “hyperlinks distract people from reading and thinking deeply.” — The Shallows
- “Memory itself does not appear to be declining; instead, we shift what we memorize to take advantage of the capabilities of computers.”
Here again is a shifting of the goal post. Does offloading and outsourcing memory to computers necessarily affect how your brain works? Why yes it absolutely does, argues Nicholas Carr:
We can assume that the neural circuits devoted to scanning, skimming, and multitasking are expanding and strengthening, while those used for reading and thinking deeply, with sustained concentration, are weakening or eroding. In 2009, researchers from Stanford University found signs that this shift may already be well under way. They gave a battery of cognitive tests to a group of heavy media multitaskers as well as a group of relatively light multitaskers. They found that the heavy multitaskers were much more easily distracted by “irrelevant environmental stimuli,” had significantly less control over the contents of their working memory, and were in general much less able to maintain their concentration on a particular task. — The Shallows
- “Texting will not hurt writing proficiency, and, in fact, may encourage literacy and creative writing.”
Texting maybe, but AI and autocorrect have done wonders for our spelling, grammar, and ability to piece together cogent sentences. From the Glass Cage:
In 2013, a reporter from the Observer newspaper in London interviewed Singhal about the many improvements that have been made to Google’s search engine over the years. “Presumably,” the journalist remarked, “we have got more precise in our search terms the more we have used Google.” Singhal sighed and, “somewhat wearily,” corrected the reporter: “ ‘Actually, it works the other way. The more accurate the machine gets, the lazier the questions become.’
By offloading memory, we spend our mental assets on other capital — presumably complaining, cat memes and Snapchat. If that’s worth the detriment to your cerebral capacity, I suppose there’s an argument to be made.
I’m not trying to be negative or fear monger here — but only illustrate that there are truths to be considered beyond “yay, teens should use technology well.” Using technology prudently and appropriately must be the highest priority for children, as every single aspect of their lives dictates the adults they will become.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that men such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg all grew up in technology devoid, highly tactile environments as children. Their genius came from their embrace of the day to day, solving real problems and interacting with the world — not from scrolling on a screen.
There is no need to be scared. We must empower, not control. Young people are adapting positively to the digital age and we need to trust in their ability to do so.
I will end in tacit agreement. We must definitely empower our children to make the best choices for their mental health. But we must empower them to read, a lot. We must protect them from a world of nauseating hyperlink-filled communication that distracts the mind, stifles brain development and encourages laziness. We must make them work for an education.
With these issues front of mind, we can raise children who aren’t ashamed of their analog habits or of “not being cool.” They will know why they’re so much smarter than the other kids who watch movies on iPads all the time.
If you like what you read, be sure to punch the heart ♥ below. Stay in touch by subscribing to my newsletter or following me on Twitter.
