The Guardian has done another shoddy article about why smartphones are definitely bad. But what's really 'terrifying' is how many apparent experts are so keen to join in with them.
As someone who part of the 1st/2nd wave of people given smartphones in middle school (I’m now 23) I wish didn’t have one so young, and that the normal social thing was to wait. I think it really created an attention suck and focus on something that isn’t real. Deleted most social media off my phone in college and felt much better, since I didn’t have this background strain of checking, liking, or just watching. I was more free to think than consume.
Obviously I’m just a single person, but feel that its import to share that while the guardians piece may be poorly written, the sentiment may hold water for a good portion of the population
Indeed. And in my experience, those who are most keen to refer to 'immature' brains are also the ones most likely to say "Back in MY day..." before describing some ridiculously exaggerated feat of personal independence as a 7 year old
They appeal to the authority of their clinical experience. You appeal to your authority as a neuroscientist. They belong to a group that advocates for phone-free childhoods. You’re promoting a pro-phone book for kids.
I'm not appealing to the authority of a neuroscientist, I am flagging up the original 'appeal to authority' as a cynical tactic, and flagging up my own 'authority' as a counterpoint if anyone puts stock in such methods.
I'm appealing to the actual scientific evidence, of which there is a huge body and which represents samples that are for more indicative of the whole population than a handful of clinical cases in a single practice, which will by definition represent the absolute worst-case scenarios.
I am not promoting a 'pro phone' book, I'm promoting an evidence-based book, that is both for and against phones, depending on the context. My primary concern here is correcting bad science/misinformation in the mainstream, because that worsens everything for us all in the long run. If I can sell books as an aside, then my family gets to eat and we can keep our house.
I defer to published studies and sources for all my conclusions. If the studies and sources update and say something different, I'll change my conclusions.
I do not concoct spurious arguments from anecdotal evidence, vibes, and agenda-driven TV shows and present them for a mass audience in a major publication.
Nobody is 100% objective, because that's not how humans work. But tenuous 'whataboutism' is a diversionary tactic, not the gotcha you seem to think it is.
As someone who part of the 1st/2nd wave of people given smartphones in middle school (I’m now 23) I wish didn’t have one so young, and that the normal social thing was to wait. I think it really created an attention suck and focus on something that isn’t real. Deleted most social media off my phone in college and felt much better, since I didn’t have this background strain of checking, liking, or just watching. I was more free to think than consume.
Obviously I’m just a single person, but feel that its import to share that while the guardians piece may be poorly written, the sentiment may hold water for a good portion of the population
I laughed at the idea that until 25 our ability to think rationally, plan or exibit self-control is limited.
Think of Pitt the Younger. MP at 21, Chancellor at 23 and PM at 24, after being offerred the position 3 times previously and declining.
Which seems to me to show an element of planning and self-control many current older politicians lack!
Indeed. And in my experience, those who are most keen to refer to 'immature' brains are also the ones most likely to say "Back in MY day..." before describing some ridiculously exaggerated feat of personal independence as a 7 year old
They appeal to the authority of their clinical experience. You appeal to your authority as a neuroscientist. They belong to a group that advocates for phone-free childhoods. You’re promoting a pro-phone book for kids.
No one’s really objective here, are they?
I'm not appealing to the authority of a neuroscientist, I am flagging up the original 'appeal to authority' as a cynical tactic, and flagging up my own 'authority' as a counterpoint if anyone puts stock in such methods.
I'm appealing to the actual scientific evidence, of which there is a huge body and which represents samples that are for more indicative of the whole population than a handful of clinical cases in a single practice, which will by definition represent the absolute worst-case scenarios.
I am not promoting a 'pro phone' book, I'm promoting an evidence-based book, that is both for and against phones, depending on the context. My primary concern here is correcting bad science/misinformation in the mainstream, because that worsens everything for us all in the long run. If I can sell books as an aside, then my family gets to eat and we can keep our house.
I defer to published studies and sources for all my conclusions. If the studies and sources update and say something different, I'll change my conclusions.
I do not concoct spurious arguments from anecdotal evidence, vibes, and agenda-driven TV shows and present them for a mass audience in a major publication.
Nobody is 100% objective, because that's not how humans work. But tenuous 'whataboutism' is a diversionary tactic, not the gotcha you seem to think it is.
"Yet you participate in society..."
"If mental health professionals can prove it exists, then it seems they are keeping it a secret, for some reason.".
Oh no! And another conspiracy theory is born...
My hypothesis is that 95% of conspiracy theories are started by throw away comments that some wingnut* takes seriously! 😂
* I am not a psychologist, so I don't know if I'm allowed to use technical terms like" wingnut or not?
Keeping a secret possibly because it is making companies a lot of money. Without Social Media, nobody will really be using a Smartphone.
Maybe it isn't the Smartphone itself, but the applications that are easily accessible and highly addictive.