Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8668344" data-attributes="member: 59082">A very interesting and well-written post.While I agree with the gist of many of your points, there are a few points I'd like to raise - not as disagreements, but hopefully complementary variations on the theme.1) I think part of the problem is that we're still relatively early into the "information age." Or rather, there are various unfoldings, in terms of when certain technologies became available (becoming ubiquitous sometime after):c. 1500 Printc. 1900 Recordingsc. 1900 Cinemac. 1910 Radioc. 1950 TVc. 1990 Internetc. 2000 mobile phonesc. 2010 smartphonesWith Boomers, we had our first generation for whom TV was always part of their lives. With most Millenials, the internet; and now with Zennials, it is smartphones and a huge increase in social media forms. Not only are we still early in the latest cycle, but understanding the type and degree of influence is very, very difficult, and not only probably won't be understandable for years to come, but may also depend upon the worldview that is approaching such a question - that is, what we value. 2) Scientific studies, in my opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt. Not thrown out, but not used as some kind of final arbiter of what is or is not true. In fact, there was one scientific study that theorized that about 50% of all scientific studies are flawed, even complete bunk. And we should know by now that two sides of just about any discussion can cite scientific studies to bolster their point.Again, this doesn't mean they're entirely useless, just that they shouldn't be used as some kind of absolute proof - which they frequently are.In that regard, I don't think scientific studies should negate our personal experience. For me, too much "screen time" just feels unhealthy in a variety of ways. I don't need a scientific study to tell me whether that is true or not (although, unfortunately, I still engage in too much screen time!). On a personal note, I have two daughters, 13 and 17. I got them their first tablets about 5 years ago, and their first iPhones about 3 years ago, decisions that I somewhat regret. My younger daughter, in particular, has a very difficult time with it, and exhibits real signs of addictive behavior.Now we can say, "No scientific study says that X number of hours on devices leads to this or that problem," but I can tell you that my experience, as a parent, is that the overall effect is negative - at least to the degree that she uses it (my older daughter is more moderate). She does less art, doesn't like to read, and constantly feels like she needs to be in contact with her social circle, which in turn makes it harder for her to entertain herself, or simply be alone.That said, as with every past form of technology, I think the key is a healthy balance - and for us to master it, rather than it master us. The problem, though, is that the makers of such devices actually design their products to be addictive, so it is a hard battle to win when there is a profit motive involved. But we live in a world where 99.9% of us "have to" engage in these technologies to varying degrees--not to mention the enormous benefits, like being able to have this conversation--and in the case of my daughters, I do feel that it would do more harm than good if I took them away from them. My 13-year old's main focus is her social life - that is entirely appropriate and healthy for her age. I just wish she could balance it more with other activities that didn't require devices, screens, etc. A work in progress!3) With regards to mental illnesses, and other "non-normative" expressions, being more prevalent because they are less stigmatized, I mostly agree. Yet there is a problem I want to highlight with such terms as "neurodivergence," because it feels like a bandaid fix that somewhat re-enforces what it is seeking to solve, rather than a more transformative shift in our perception of human diversity. Meaning, it still implies that one is "divergent from the norm" - which also implies that there is a norm. I'd much rather see us embrace a worldview that softens up the definition of "normal" so that it includes "divergence" and even, eventually, does away with both terms, so that we're simply left with human diversity. Baby steps, I guess. Meaning, my hope is that we move more and more towards a culture in which any and all such labels can be dissolved, or at least malleable, and we can simply embrace human diversity without needing to label or codify it. To some degree, this is true of a lot of what we call "mental illness" - much of it is just based upon what a particular society views as mentally ill or not - that is, to what degree an individual fits into norms, and/or can succeed in the society as it is (without questioning the root assumptions of the society).To illustrate this, I am reminded of something a student said to me some years ago. She remarked that a lot of the basic assumptions of the school, especially in terms of grading, were based upon extroversion, that introverts had a disadvantage and it implied that being extroverted was "better" than being introverted. I completely agree(d) with her - and think a lot of this is hardwired into our value system, which in turn perpetuates the society that we live in, the emphasis on economic growth, myth of progress, conformity, etc etc, rather than strange ideas like human well-being, equality, uniqueness, diversity, etc.</blockquote>

Verification