Limiting screen time

[rousseau]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

I think this is bullshit though. I see this just as old fogies worried about new stuff. Until I see some actual research that can show negative effects I'm calling bullshit. The fact that reading comprehension is going down, isn't necessarily a problem. Kids today are just literate in other ways. As somebody recently pointed out. We're going back to the original alphabet. This is ancient Egyptian again. A known meme is a letter in an alphabet. We post the meme because it catches more, and is more specific than writing the same thing on a keyboard. Because when we measure intelligence and skill today, we use the measuring systems from older generations. We haven't yet learned how to measure meme posting skills.

I know some people who work as PR consultants. Reaching out is all about mastering social media today. I'm guessing that those kids who aren't allowed phones in their schools and given books instead, aren't going to be ahead in this field.

I read an article on skill of surgeons. The best indicator that a newly graduated surgeon will be good isn't how high his marks are on his medical degree. It's the fact that he has a medical degree (any result) AND enjoys playing FPS computer games.

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

[DrZoidberg]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

I think this is bullshit though. I see this just as old fogies worried about new stuff. Until I see some actual research that can show negative effects I'm calling bullshit. The fact that reading comprehension is going down, isn't necessarily a problem. Kids today are just literate in other ways. As somebody recently pointed out. We're going back to the original alphabet. This is ancient Egyptian again. A known meme is a letter in an alphabet. We post the meme because it catches more, and is more specific than writing the same thing on a keyboard. Because when we measure intelligence and skill today, we use the measuring systems from older generations. We haven't yet learned how to measure meme posting skills.

I know some people who work as PR consultants. Reaching out is all about mastering social media today. I'm guessing that those kids who aren't allowed phones in their schools and given books instead, aren't going to be ahead in this field.

I read an article on skill of surgeons. The best indicator that a newly graduated surgeon will be good isn't how high his marks are on his medical degree. It's the fact that he has a medical degree (any result) AND enjoys playing FPS computer games.

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

[rousseau]

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

[DrZoidberg]

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.



I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

And since our society is increasingly shifting in that direction the chances of that skill being valuable, also goes up.

[rousseau]

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.



I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

And since our society is increasingly shifting in that direction the chances of that skill being valuable, also goes up.

Sure, but you're starting to reach a bit. For the most part the economic potential of smartphones is limited to a very narrow scope: people whose job is social media, or to market their business on social media. The majority of people over-using smartphones is usually just due to muscle memory / neural pathways, and serves limited purpose if done in excess.

Think of all the other things that were once or are 'natural'. People used to smoke cigarettes, or hell even doing something as simple as drinking soda. Just because a bunch of mega-rich corporations have convinced people to do something en masse, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to do it all the time. And actually, I think you could easily build an argument that the very fact that everyone is doing it, means there is probably a smarter way to do things. The masses are rarely rational.

This isn't really that complicated of an argument. Smartphones aren't the equivalent of landlines or snail-mail.. these are apps built by companies who literally attend conferences to learn how to addict their users.

[fromderinside]

Seems to me the problem with ubiquitous cell phones , if there is one, is that many apps on board are designed to monetize themselves. Since this is an existing problem in society, capitalism, I see no 'problem' with the instrument of capitalism being ubiquitous cell phones. We live in societies under control of governments purportedly there to minimize harm causing by citizens. If capitalism is significantly regulated to keep down it's use of emotive tools capitalism probably wouldn't be a problem.

[DrZoidberg]

Seems to me the problem with ubiquitous cell phones , if there is one, is that many apps on board are designed to monetize themselves. Since this is an existing problem in society, capitalism, I see no 'problem' with the instrument of capitalism being ubiquitous cell phones. We live in societies under control of governments purportedly there to minimize harm causing by citizens. If capitalism is significantly regulated to keep down it's use of emotive tools capitalism probably wouldn't be a problem.

That's something I've never understood. When I'm thinking of buying a mobile game I read reviews. Often people are complaining about that they've used hundred of dollars on a game, or even just forty dollars. And are whining about that an upgrade changed something they've paid for. I don't understand who these people are? I've never paid for a microtransaction in my life. Because I know that it's hard to keep track of. I don't mind paying for a game once when I buy it. But after that, no way. and I make a lot of money. I have a very well paying job. Who the fuck are all these people spending money on the microtransactions? There's tonnes of games out there. Why not go for a cheaper one? Or a free one?

It's just a mystery to me.

[lpetrich]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

That's excessive. While I think that being a smartphone addict is a bad thing, I find dead-tree books to be a burden, and I am gradually giving away most of mine. As I go, I'm getting e-book versions of the ones I want.