> Whenever I see parents scrolling, and handing a kid a phone as well to pacify them, I wish I could report them for child abuse.
Consider that you might not have everything figured out for everyone. I'm glad you found something that works, but the will to impose your way on others isn't benevolent.
Many parents used to drink while pregnant and put whiskey in the baby bottle to make kid shut up. We should make decisions based on research, not by emulating other badly informed parents, even if they are the majority.
The study does not point to a cause. The comment I'm responding to is drawing conclusions based on a sensationalist blog post and then wishing they could report other parents for abuse. I think the study is well done, but we can't scientifically draw the conclusions from it that the author (and folks in this thread) are drawing.
This is just one study, that echos dozens and dozens of other studies all pointing at the same things: being reachable and able to reach everything and everyone everywhere all at once is making us all sadder and less productive, and kids are getting the worst of it having been handed this tech from their parents shortly after birth.
Your reply was next to meaningless as it doesn't offer anything above a "well, that's just how YOU feel about it!".
Yes, that's true. That /is/ how the OP feels about it. But at least they were able to articulate their point and get a message across, along with an implied (albeit weak) "call to action", not meant to be taken literally. Although I'm sure, if polled, the majority of folks in this thread would agree with the OP sentiment. I know I do.
“I wish I could have CPS take away their children and put them in foster homes” is a pretty messed up thought to have in response to seeing a kid looking at a phone. It seems pretty reasonable to call that out.
> Your reply was next to meaningless
We’re on a discussion forum. “Here’s how I feel about what said” is basically the point.
The purpose of my comment was to point out that just because you've found a solution that works for you does not mean it is generalizable and should be turned into a rule for the entire population.
1. I am entirely convinced minors should not have smartphones and every study supports this being a net negative.
2. I feel most adults are better off without them too, but it is an adult choice. For most I suggest deleting a frequently used app ever month until you stop seeing benefits.
The study we're discussing drew no such conclusion. There's a very disturbing pattern of studies coming out and being summarized by people with an agenda that choose to draw conclusions that are not supported by the study they're discussing. This is definitely true of social media studies, and I suspect it's true of mobile phone studies as well, although maybe you can provide a couple that you think are airtight and I can take a look.
ALL studies I have seen seem to support the idea that constant connectivity leads to worse mental health outcomes on average.
To get to specific proof though, clinically in the way we could with other addictions like smoking, we would need to look at how individual applications that allow us to outsource various cognitive functions specifically impact our brains.
GPS is a well studied example. Humans that rely on GPS instead of their own brains end up with provably weaker hippocampus.
It is not hard to form a hypothesis from this how letting targeted content algorithms decide what you see instead of making decisions on your own could weaken the portions of your brain that make decisions in a similar way, and all studies we have seen so far seem to support this hypothesis.
I would of course like to see more brain scan research but when all data points to the negative on something only available to humans very recently, and your own lived experience of forgoing that something has had major benefits for your personally, it becomes easy to be a strong advocate for people trying out a reduction of that something.
You seem to be arguing about avoiding constant connectivity. This is very different than not owning a smartphone. I think the conversation has gone off the rails, as I was critiquing your desire to impose a no smartphone lifestyle on others.
I can't reply to you anymore, but the study you cited is at least a couple of steps removed from the discussion.
First, it's about offloading navigation to a computer, and observing that humans use less of their navigation skills when doing so. This is very far removed from "smartphone use causes mental health problems".
Second, you claim it shows a "provably weaker hippocampus". But the study doesn't show that at all. It shows less activity in the hippocampus, which would be entirely expected, much like if we offloaded translation to a computer, we wouldn't see the same level of activity in the language centers of the brain.
The researchers themselves only conclude this from their study:
> These results help shape models of how hippocampal and prefrontal regions support navigation, planning and future simulation.
The data supports exactly the claim I am making: That indeed, offloading basic tasks we could do for ourselves, like navigation, decision making etc, is robbing our brains of mental exercise that would otherwise make them stronger and less dependent on technology.
The study's authors did not even attempt to draw any conclusions about long-term impact on brain health or mental health from their study. You're free to do so, but I don't find it compelling.
You asked for a study supporting our over-use of phones in general is a net negative.
I gave a specific example that is well studied that could allow us to make pretty good guesses about other apps that do our thinking for us, which could explain the types of results we get in these studies.
Consider that you might not have everything figured out for everyone. I'm glad you found something that works, but the will to impose your way on others isn't benevolent.