Lol, you are putting way to much emphasis on a comment about technology that is decades away.
And even if we did have it, there would likely be a computer interface where you can alter the settings to allow you privacy or for when you get on a plane
Calm Down, Parents: A Rigorous New Oxford Study of 350,000 Teens Shows Screen Time Is About as Dangerous as Potatoes
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman...udy-finds.html
According to the fascinating writeup by Lydia Denworth in Scientific American, the new, more careful analysis shows that, no matter which measure you look at, screens have close to no effect on kids' psychological health. Are phones making kids more depressed? No. More suicidal? More selfish? More isolated? The answer is no, no, and no again.
Denworth brings home the point of how little effect screen time appears to have on measures of psychological well-being with a pair of memorable comparisons: "Technology use tilts the needle less than half a percent away from feeling emotionally sound. For context, eating potatoes is associated with nearly the same degree of effect and wearing glasses has a more negative impact on adolescent mental health."
....
Which doesn't mean you should just hand your kid an iPad and put your feet up. This study shows that, at the broad population level, screens aren't really impacting kids' mental health. That doesn't mean that one individual teenager might not have a problem with obsessive screen use. You don't want your kid to be one of those problematic individuals.
Bottom line: Parents should pay attention to their particular child and set sensible limits based on their particular personality and habits, but there's no scientifically valid reason to lose sleep over screens. If you're not terrified of potatoes, you shouldn't be too worried about your kid's phone either.
That’s not funny Abe. A potato killed my grandfather.
I think the authors captured my greatest concern with their 'rigorous' conclusion:
This is what I take from their effort. They took three surveys and scrubbed them using SCA, which I am going to assume is mathematically sound. But they admit that those underlying studies that they used are shit.For the sake of simplicity and comparison, simple linear regressions were used in this study, overlooking the fact that the relationship of interest is probably more complex, non-linear or hierarchical13. Many measures used were also of low quality, non-normal, heterogenous or outdated, limiting the generalizability of the study’s inferences. As self-report digital technology measures are known to be noisy30, this could also have led to the effects of technology on well-being being diminished due to low-quality measurement. Lastly, we used null hypothesis significance testing to interpret significance, which is problematic when using such exten-sive data. To improve partnerships between research councils and behavioural scientists, the implementation of better measurement, and pre-registering of analyses plans, will be crucial.
So not to put cold water on what I think is a significant takeaway -- screen use has a negative impact on well-being, but it might be overblown, and it's not as significant as bullying, wearing glasses, asthma, and binge-drinking. But at best it's a solid bit of evidence to say 'pump your brakes, you anti-technology goobs.'There are at least three reasons why the inferences drawn by behavioural scientists from large-scale datasets might produce divergent findings. First, these datasets are mostly collected in collaboration with multidisciplinary research councils and are characterized by a battery of items meant to be completed by postal survey, face-to-face or telephone interview6–8. Though research councils engage in public consultations15, the pre-tested or validated scales common in clinical, social or personality psy-chology are often abbreviated or altered to reduce participant burden16,17. Scientists wishing to make inferences about the effects of digital technology using these data need to make numerous decisions about how to analyse, combine and interpret the mea-sures. Taking advantage of these valuable datasets is therefore fraught with many subjective analytical decisions, which can lead to high numbers of researcher degrees of freedom18. With nearly all decisions taken after the data are known, these are not appar-ent to those reading the published paper highlighting only the final analytical pathway
It's a hard thing to measure, but an effort like this is laudable. What we don't get to any answer about:
1. How much screen time (frequency, duration)?
2. What is the nature of the screen time (there is a difference between being bullied on social media and watching a continuing education video)?
3. How do we quantify well-being?
4. How do we define measures of well-being?
5. Is the strongest relationship between the social aspects of technology, or the technology itself?
Originally Posted by Sting
I wish they actually answered the question they raised: what is the measured physiological impact of prolonged exposure to modern light sources (aka screens) as encountered in typical modern life?
A lot of guesswork and speculation is what I read, I was hoping for clear findings.
Originally Posted by Sting
Originally Posted by Sting
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)