So, maybe smartphones do not alter the literal (biological) attention span. If I may paraphrase the Wikipedia definition here, addiction is strong behavioral urge despite negative consequences. Just because technology can't be called "universally bad", just because this kind of addiction is new and hard to measure (no pendant to measuring tobacco residue in the lung etc.), does not mean it does not exist. Would it be a good idea for me, the alcoholic, to refrain from all drinking, including this? Absolutely fucking yes. Would it, in itself, be even negative? No. Say I am an alcoholic - would this kind of drinking I just described be the core of my addiction? No. Since this discussion is already chock-full of metaphors, let me make one as well: I am currently in Italy, where a good dinner is usually accompanied by a good wine. We should absolutely be aware of the concept of Moral Panics and see our own opinions in light of that, yes.īut does that mean technology addiction is actually confined to the small realm of literal digital gambling?
We should absolutely keep a critical eye on pop science, check for bias and straight lies. Some solid points in there, but I feel the overall conclusion may be a little too.diffusionist. If you're lucky enough to never encounter these ideas, congratulations on cultivating an excellent social environment! The rest of the world hasn't all made it there yet.Įh.
I agree with you that the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement represent a lot of the real danger of screen time, but I disagree that this article is arguing against a straw man. I try to limit the amount of passive content consumption my child is exposed to, and I try to shift the passive content to forms that are less of a superstimulus and more intentional, like novels." This really is a meaningfully different message from "I'm concerned about social media use specifically. Screens are bad and harmful for children." While I agree that I haven't seen specific criticisms of Khan Academy being dangerous, I absolutely have seen both pervasive media messaging as well as real people in my personal life express and stand behind unconditional unqualified statements like "Screens are bad for kids one way I keep my kids safe is absolutely minimizing all exposure to screens. That’s what the danger of screens is about. They’re talking about the addictive nature of social media and other infinity pools of content and engagement. No one is talking about the dangers of Khan Academy or Duolingo. A more nuanced comparison would be that screens are like food-it depends on what you’re consuming and how much.īut that’s a straw man. > A popular view is that screens are like cigarettes-the less you consume the better. But on the other hand, it probably goes too far towards minimizing the effects of ubiquitous hyper-stimulation. Personally, I think this article does a fine job dispelling some of the hysteria around screen use. I’m going to head the likely discussion off the pass: like articles on nutrition or fitness, discussions on screen time inevitably devolve into share-fears where everyone is describing and possibly advocating their own lifestyle approach, and it’s very subjective.Īnd that extends to responses to TFA. I still like the guy as his message hasn't really changed. But who knows who is in each other's pocket.
Maybe the 2007 book has something else in it, but I always got the opinion that famous founders simply attended the class and may/may not have used what they learned in it. Behavior science itself is already an ethical dilemma.
It's quite unfair to attribute his involvement as something malicious though. I think it's fair to see someone decry the state of affairs when they were already on that side of the fence.
YOUTUBE THE PROFESSOR VS TRASH TALKER FULL
That's a full generation to see the effects of technology and mainstream adoption while comparing it to your life's work. It's been well over 20 years since his work started was published. He also has old lecture videos that give the same impression in a more academic-neutral light: How do you get that impression? His 2003 work talks about his fascination of propaganda and how it might be unethical to persuade someone using technology for malicious purposes.
0 kommentar(er)
