By coincidence this comes out as Haidt is spearheading a new study that in stead of looking for causes in a sea of possibilities, looks at effects of keeping phones out of school, a way to provide exactly the kind of evidence or justification you are asking for. This study will be ongoing and updated in real time, and I admire his and his colleagues dogged pursuit of going for data rather than vibes. Finding an effect this way could be useful for those not convinced already by the documented efforts at making both media and message as additive as possible, creating content that push buttons and maximizing the exposure time to this.
I think there is a big jump from "what would you do as a parent if your kid was experiencing negative consequences from phones?" to "the government should ban phones for kids". The role of parents seems undervalued in these debates. Usually, parents' choice is waved away by the argument that there is too much social downside from disconnecting kids from their phones. But that argument has a flip side. Whatever the damage from phones, it seems less than the damage from disconnecting kids from phones.
The unwillingness to offer a single causal explanation is sensible for many reasons but the analysis is a cop out and unhelpful from a supposed expert. Why are Haidt and others so off base?
Parents these days are keeping kids under constant surveillance (along with their feline and canine pets) with trackers like Life360, knowing their precise location at all times, but they need their phone to give them driving directions around their hometowns.
Imagine an app where all free speech is published within a feed that teens and parents can control. The algorithm itself is chosen by individuals based on value based goals. This is possible today.
To get there, we can mimic what makes the rest of the internet a free place: open standards.
All free speech must be available via open standard APIs. Third party apps should be able to consume these at-cost. Implicit in this is a right to pay for data and a de privatization of free speech.
Parents and kids will have a much easier time building online communities if they can use the thinking brain to top-down control what happens in the moment.
Limitations will be part of a much more transparent future state. The current framing fails to capture how addictive and misanthropic the algorithms are.
Oops.. meat on the table, it’s 🆗to just leave the table, hungry, or be forced to sit there 3 hours after everybody leaves the table, choke it down by just swallowing. It’s terrible to be
subjected to ‘should,’ by every super large ,bigger than you, can hit you , if they want: The no =heritage. The gift from SOULSELF, present at every emergence into this amazing, astounding, astonishing, responsible, desired, plan of free choice
multidimensional multiverse, IS consciousness(not ONLY to humans). Period.
EVERYBODY KNOWS the plan, deliberately brought from non-physical rehearsal.
There's a Haidt shaped irony sitting in this dispute that I haven't seen anyone name.
The Righteous Mind argues that when a value is held sacred, reasoning stops weighing evidence and starts recruiting it.
Childhood is about as sacred as a value gets.
So the same data supports both readings, not because the data is weak, but because neither side is in the mode where data settles things.
Your separation of the flourishing claim from the empirical one is the only move that gets around it, which is probably why it's the part people are arguing with.
To maintain oneself means facing depletion, competition, and changes in the environment. It means acquiring resources and maintaining a position. None of this disappears because someone feels happy in the moment.
So the question is not only whether a child enjoys spending hours on TikTok. Nor is it simply whether reading, sports, or art are more valuable.
We also have to ask whether a way of life prepares them to face reality, acquire resources, maintain a position, and deal with future pressures.
Happiness matters. But it rests on top of self-maintenance.
Before asking what kind of life is worth living, we have to ask whether that life enables a person to keep maintaining themselves.
Why does there have to be a single reason? The few people I know that have committed suicide did so due a range of contributing factors. As far as I am aware there is no universal theory of suicide that is being employed in all this research.
When humans stop the blame game, whatever their age, become aware about their inherited beliefs, which, truly, IS easily recognized, especially, when other serves liver, for example @ super, three times a week because, “it’s good for you,” it’s awful, the only meet
By coincidence this comes out as Haidt is spearheading a new study that in stead of looking for causes in a sea of possibilities, looks at effects of keeping phones out of school, a way to provide exactly the kind of evidence or justification you are asking for. This study will be ongoing and updated in real time, and I admire his and his colleagues dogged pursuit of going for data rather than vibes. Finding an effect this way could be useful for those not convinced already by the documented efforts at making both media and message as additive as possible, creating content that push buttons and maximizing the exposure time to this.
>why things aren’t as bad for adolescents in many European countries.
This is what really sticks with me.
Thank you for your good-faith efforts to find useful and constructive ideas.
I think there is a big jump from "what would you do as a parent if your kid was experiencing negative consequences from phones?" to "the government should ban phones for kids". The role of parents seems undervalued in these debates. Usually, parents' choice is waved away by the argument that there is too much social downside from disconnecting kids from their phones. But that argument has a flip side. Whatever the damage from phones, it seems less than the damage from disconnecting kids from phones.
The unwillingness to offer a single causal explanation is sensible for many reasons but the analysis is a cop out and unhelpful from a supposed expert. Why are Haidt and others so off base?
Dick
Parents these days are keeping kids under constant surveillance (along with their feline and canine pets) with trackers like Life360, knowing their precise location at all times, but they need their phone to give them driving directions around their hometowns.
Has there even been a generation of adults that thought the kids were alright?
Our frame is over constrained.
Imagine an app where all free speech is published within a feed that teens and parents can control. The algorithm itself is chosen by individuals based on value based goals. This is possible today.
To get there, we can mimic what makes the rest of the internet a free place: open standards.
All free speech must be available via open standard APIs. Third party apps should be able to consume these at-cost. Implicit in this is a right to pay for data and a de privatization of free speech.
Parents and kids will have a much easier time building online communities if they can use the thinking brain to top-down control what happens in the moment.
Limitations will be part of a much more transparent future state. The current framing fails to capture how addictive and misanthropic the algorithms are.
Oops.. meat on the table, it’s 🆗to just leave the table, hungry, or be forced to sit there 3 hours after everybody leaves the table, choke it down by just swallowing. It’s terrible to be
subjected to ‘should,’ by every super large ,bigger than you, can hit you , if they want: The no =heritage. The gift from SOULSELF, present at every emergence into this amazing, astounding, astonishing, responsible, desired, plan of free choice
multidimensional multiverse, IS consciousness(not ONLY to humans). Period.
EVERYBODY KNOWS the plan, deliberately brought from non-physical rehearsal.
There's a Haidt shaped irony sitting in this dispute that I haven't seen anyone name.
The Righteous Mind argues that when a value is held sacred, reasoning stops weighing evidence and starts recruiting it.
Childhood is about as sacred as a value gets.
So the same data supports both readings, not because the data is weak, but because neither side is in the mode where data settles things.
Your separation of the flourishing claim from the empirical one is the only move that gets around it, which is probably why it's the part people are arguing with.
A person is first a self-maintaining structure.
To maintain oneself means facing depletion, competition, and changes in the environment. It means acquiring resources and maintaining a position. None of this disappears because someone feels happy in the moment.
So the question is not only whether a child enjoys spending hours on TikTok. Nor is it simply whether reading, sports, or art are more valuable.
We also have to ask whether a way of life prepares them to face reality, acquire resources, maintain a position, and deal with future pressures.
Happiness matters. But it rests on top of self-maintenance.
Before asking what kind of life is worth living, we have to ask whether that life enables a person to keep maintaining themselves.
Why does there have to be a single reason? The few people I know that have committed suicide did so due a range of contributing factors. As far as I am aware there is no universal theory of suicide that is being employed in all this research.
When humans stop the blame game, whatever their age, become aware about their inherited beliefs, which, truly, IS easily recognized, especially, when other serves liver, for example @ super, three times a week because, “it’s good for you,” it’s awful, the only meet