Limiting screen time

[DrZoidberg]

I've got friends who have apps on their phones in order to help them have less screen time. I'm struggling to come up with a good reason screen time could be bad? They're obviously looking at their phones for some reason. Perhaps our phones is a useful tool for life?

When I'm stressed I turn the podcasts off and I just walk in silence. But if I'm not stressed I don't do this. It's a self regulating system. I don't need monitoring software to keep track of this. So I don't understand what use this

The only reason I can think of to limit screen time is this quote by Douglas Adams:

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

 

[rousseau]

To me the problem is that social media is designed to hack our psychology to keep us attuned to our phones, at all times. It's not just screen time, it's a barrage of apps that have been built to deliberately instil a fear of missing out, as well as ensure we're thinking about the next notification, at all times. That to me isn't healthy. It's not just technology, it's malevolent technology.

Have you signed up for Instagram? Their entire platform is a case in point. Literally every aspect of it is built to drive addiction, and the scary part is - it works. I see people on there posting to the story feature, multiple times per day, every day. They record every banal part of their lives because they're so deep into their online persona and the little jolts they get from so much interactivity. For a while it even sucked me in, but eventually I deleted all of my content and refuse to post to it.

So I can certainly understand some people's desire to limit screen time, because it breaks the connection and dependence we have to the internet, and releases us back into the present, to enjoy our surroundings and lives as they happen, without the need to record every moment.

I don't have any apps that force me away from my phone, but at times I'll deliberately leave my phone at home when I go out. If I have it, I'll check it out of habit, but if I don't have it I can just be blissfully unaware of whatever my distant acquaintances just had for breakfast.

But I mean, sure, if you want to spend every moment of your day posting to social media, more power to you. Not how I want to spend my life, and I can see how people would want to put some distance between themselves and the internet, as well as how it may interfere with people's day to day responsibilities.

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

I don't have a cell phone, so there are random time periods, sometimes lasting HOURS, during which I cannot be contacted instantly....EVERY DAY!!!1!! It's amazing how many folks are put off by this....

 

[DrZoidberg]

To me the problem is that social media is designed to hack our psychology to keep us attuned to our phones, at all times. It's not just screen time, it's a barrage of apps that have been built to deliberately instil a fear of missing out, as well as ensure we're thinking about the next notification, at all times. That to me isn't healthy. It's not just technology, it's malevolent technology.

Have you signed up for Instagram? Their entire platform is a case in point. Literally every aspect of it is built to drive addiction, and the scary part is - it works. I see people on there posting to the story feature, multiple times per day, every day. They record every banal part of their lives because they're so deep into their online persona and the little jolts they get from so much interactivity. For a while it even sucked me in, but eventually I deleted all of my content and refuse to post to it.

So I can certainly understand some people's desire to limit screen time, because it breaks the connection and dependence we have to the internet, and releases us back into the present, to enjoy our surroundings and lives as they happen, without the need to record every moment.

I don't have any apps that force me away from my phone, but at times I'll deliberately leave my phone at home when I go out. If I have it, I'll check it out of habit, but if I don't have it I can just be blissfully unaware of whatever my distant acquaintances just had for breakfast.

But I mean, sure, if you want to spend every moment of your day posting to social media, more power to you. Not how I want to spend my life, and I can see how people would want to put some distance between themselves and the internet, as well as how it may interfere with people's day to day responsibilities.

I don't understand how this is different than anything else we enjoy. Isn't any company able to produce a product people are buying "hacking our psychology"? Isn't it just that old people don't understand young people? For old people Internet is a fun diversion. But for for young people their Internet persona is their real persona. It's not addiction. It's how young people stay connected with their friends. I see no problem with making and keeping friends. Isn't that what life is about?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't have a cell phone, so there are random time periods, sometimes lasting HOURS, during which I cannot be contacted instantly....EVERY DAY!!!1!! It's amazing how many folks are put off by this....

I have a mobile and all the gadgets. I just don't check them all the time. You don't need to go extreme and reject modern IT technology because you want some time alone

 

[rousseau]

To me the problem is that social media is designed to hack our psychology to keep us attuned to our phones, at all times. It's not just screen time, it's a barrage of apps that have been built to deliberately instil a fear of missing out, as well as ensure we're thinking about the next notification, at all times. That to me isn't healthy. It's not just technology, it's malevolent technology.

Have you signed up for Instagram? Their entire platform is a case in point. Literally every aspect of it is built to drive addiction, and the scary part is - it works. I see people on there posting to the story feature, multiple times per day, every day. They record every banal part of their lives because they're so deep into their online persona and the little jolts they get from so much interactivity. For a while it even sucked me in, but eventually I deleted all of my content and refuse to post to it.

So I can certainly understand some people's desire to limit screen time, because it breaks the connection and dependence we have to the internet, and releases us back into the present, to enjoy our surroundings and lives as they happen, without the need to record every moment.

I don't have any apps that force me away from my phone, but at times I'll deliberately leave my phone at home when I go out. If I have it, I'll check it out of habit, but if I don't have it I can just be blissfully unaware of whatever my distant acquaintances just had for breakfast.

But I mean, sure, if you want to spend every moment of your day posting to social media, more power to you. Not how I want to spend my life, and I can see how people would want to put some distance between themselves and the internet, as well as how it may interfere with people's day to day responsibilities.

I don't understand how this is different than anything else we enjoy. Isn't any company able to produce a product people are buying "hacking our psychology"? Isn't it just that old people don't understand young people? For old people Internet is a fun diversion. But for for young people their Internet persona is their real persona. It's not addiction. It's how young people stay connected with their friends. I see no problem with making and keeping friends. Isn't that what life is about?

Yes. As I said - if that's your thing, more power to you. But it doesn't change the fact that checking your phone multiple times every hour is a real problem. Some people just don't consider it a problem and are willing to accept the consequences of it. But there are consequences, which is why some people would feasibly want to limit their screen time.

Another example: McDonald's is an enjoyable type of fast food that gives pleasure, but there are reasons why someone might consider over-consuming it a bad thing, and consciously try to limit it. Attention sucking apps are no different.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Perhaps an app that tells you to pay attention to your six year old sitting across from you in the restaurant or one that causes your phone to go dark when the light turns green. Are these examples of too much screen time being bad?

 

[DrZoidberg]

To me the problem is that social media is designed to hack our psychology to keep us attuned to our phones, at all times. It's not just screen time, it's a barrage of apps that have been built to deliberately instil a fear of missing out, as well as ensure we're thinking about the next notification, at all times. That to me isn't healthy. It's not just technology, it's malevolent technology.

Have you signed up for Instagram? Their entire platform is a case in point. Literally every aspect of it is built to drive addiction, and the scary part is - it works. I see people on there posting to the story feature, multiple times per day, every day. They record every banal part of their lives because they're so deep into their online persona and the little jolts they get from so much interactivity. For a while it even sucked me in, but eventually I deleted all of my content and refuse to post to it.

So I can certainly understand some people's desire to limit screen time, because it breaks the connection and dependence we have to the internet, and releases us back into the present, to enjoy our surroundings and lives as they happen, without the need to record every moment.

I don't have any apps that force me away from my phone, but at times I'll deliberately leave my phone at home when I go out. If I have it, I'll check it out of habit, but if I don't have it I can just be blissfully unaware of whatever my distant acquaintances just had for breakfast.

But I mean, sure, if you want to spend every moment of your day posting to social media, more power to you. Not how I want to spend my life, and I can see how people would want to put some distance between themselves and the internet, as well as how it may interfere with people's day to day responsibilities.

I don't understand how this is different than anything else we enjoy. Isn't any company able to produce a product people are buying "hacking our psychology"? Isn't it just that old people don't understand young people? For old people Internet is a fun diversion. But for for young people their Internet persona is their real persona. It's not addiction. It's how young people stay connected with their friends. I see no problem with making and keeping friends. Isn't that what life is about?

Yes. As I said - if that's your thing, more power to you. But it doesn't change the fact that checking your phone multiple times every hour is a real problem.

I still don't understand why it would be automatically problematic? Doesn't it depend on what you are doing? If I'm organising a party and inviting people, I'll be checking my phone every couple of minutes. If I'm taking a walk in the park I won't touch my phone the entire time. Are you talking about addictive behaviours? The people I'm talking about, I don't think are addicted to their phones. I get the impression they're just limiting screen time because they think it's somehow unhealthy to check their phone. That's what I don't get.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps an app that tells you to pay attention to your six year old sitting across from you in the restaurant or one that causes your phone to go dark when the light turns green. Are these examples of too much screen time being bad?

Well, people who check their phones while driving should be shot. For humanity

 

[rousseau]

Yes. As I said - if that's your thing, more power to you. But it doesn't change the fact that checking your phone multiple times every hour is a real problem.

I still don't understand why it would be automatically problematic? Doesn't it depend on what you are doing? If I'm organising a party and inviting people, I'll be checking my phone every couple of minutes. If I'm taking a walk in the park I won't touch my phone the entire time. Are you talking about addictive behaviours? The people I'm talking about, I don't think are addicted to their phones. I get the impression they're just limiting screen time because they think it's somehow unhealthy to check their phone. That's what I don't get.

It's not automatically problematic. Eating fast food isn't problematic if you only do it a couple times a year, or drinking if you only have a few a month etc. Have you asked your friends why they limit their screen time? Their answer may be illuminating.

Let's put it another way. Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, Twitter etc are monetizing your attention. This implies that your attention is a valuable commodity that can lead to real material outcomes. If you spend all of your time buried in your phone checking Facebook it leads to material outcomes for Facebook. Where if you spend it doing useful things for yourself it leads to material outcomes for you.

A hard example: 16 year old kid spends a year playing video games rather than doing his/her homework. What happens? They squandered their attention and didn't get into college.

It may seem like screen time is the natural order of things for kids, but there are lots of other things that appear to be 'natural' but are actually terrible for you if you overdo it. It's just that in this case social networks and apps are very successful in extracting the time/attention from people, and those people don't realize it's happening.

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

I think this is bullshit though. I see this just as old fogies worried about new stuff. Until I see some actual research that can show negative effects I'm calling bullshit. The fact that reading comprehension is going down, isn't necessarily a problem. Kids today are just literate in other ways. As somebody recently pointed out. We're going back to the original alphabet. This is ancient Egyptian again. A known meme is a letter in an alphabet. We post the meme because it catches more, and is more specific than writing the same thing on a keyboard. Because when we measure intelligence and skill today, we use the measuring systems from older generations. We haven't yet learned how to measure meme posting skills.

I know some people who work as PR consultants. Reaching out is all about mastering social media today. I'm guessing that those kids who aren't allowed phones in their schools and given books instead, aren't going to be ahead in this field.

I read an article on skill of surgeons. The best indicator that a newly graduated surgeon will be good isn't how high his marks are on his medical degree. It's the fact that he has a medical degree (any result) AND enjoys playing FPS computer games.

 

[rousseau]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

I think this is bullshit though. I see this just as old fogies worried about new stuff. Until I see some actual research that can show negative effects I'm calling bullshit. The fact that reading comprehension is going down, isn't necessarily a problem. Kids today are just literate in other ways. As somebody recently pointed out. We're going back to the original alphabet. This is ancient Egyptian again. A known meme is a letter in an alphabet. We post the meme because it catches more, and is more specific than writing the same thing on a keyboard. Because when we measure intelligence and skill today, we use the measuring systems from older generations. We haven't yet learned how to measure meme posting skills.

I know some people who work as PR consultants. Reaching out is all about mastering social media today. I'm guessing that those kids who aren't allowed phones in their schools and given books instead, aren't going to be ahead in this field.

I read an article on skill of surgeons. The best indicator that a newly graduated surgeon will be good isn't how high his marks are on his medical degree. It's the fact that he has a medical degree (any result) AND enjoys playing FPS computer games.

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

I think this is bullshit though. I see this just as old fogies worried about new stuff. Until I see some actual research that can show negative effects I'm calling bullshit. The fact that reading comprehension is going down, isn't necessarily a problem. Kids today are just literate in other ways. As somebody recently pointed out. We're going back to the original alphabet. This is ancient Egyptian again. A known meme is a letter in an alphabet. We post the meme because it catches more, and is more specific than writing the same thing on a keyboard. Because when we measure intelligence and skill today, we use the measuring systems from older generations. We haven't yet learned how to measure meme posting skills.

I know some people who work as PR consultants. Reaching out is all about mastering social media today. I'm guessing that those kids who aren't allowed phones in their schools and given books instead, aren't going to be ahead in this field.

I read an article on skill of surgeons. The best indicator that a newly graduated surgeon will be good isn't how high his marks are on his medical degree. It's the fact that he has a medical degree (any result) AND enjoys playing FPS computer games.

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

 

[rousseau]

The research isn't robust because this is a new phenomenon, but it's not too hard to put two and two together. If you spend all of your time playing video games or posting to your Instagram story, rather than learning real skills, you will be great at posting to your Instagram story, and have no skills.

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.

This means that being able to pull your attention away from useless shit offers you a competitive advantage, just as it does using willpower in tons of other domains.

I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.



I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

And since our society is increasingly shifting in that direction the chances of that skill being valuable, also goes up.

 

[rousseau]

I think posting a compelling Instagram picture that gets attention is a skill. Considering how much time people spend on their phones, I think it's probably a valuable skill.

I remember a while back I was dating a girl and I asked her her age. She told me that she's the age where she's unable to take a good selfie. That's pretty telling. These kids on their phones are developing skills. Whether they are useful or not, is another question. But the idea that all their time is wasted is questionable IMHO.

Our culture is shifting from primarily verbal to more of an emphasis on the visual. That's not a value judgement. That's just a fact.



I can't see the connection. Having the ability to regulate your own dopamine reward system is good and desirable, no matter what. All you've done is shifted around what is desirable behaviour and what isn't. How do you judge what is desirable? You clearly don't value Instagram.

I have a friend who is a stripper. Instagram is a tool of her trade. She's become an Instagram personality in her own right. But it's still just marketing for her. She pulls in big money and is a free agent, not dependent on any agency that will take cuts. I can't see how her Instagram use is in any way problematic?

Ok, sure, for some people Instagram is a means to a livelihood, and if social media is what your future depends on it's probably beneficial to be good at it.

And since our society is increasingly shifting in that direction the chances of that skill being valuable, also goes up.

Sure, but you're starting to reach a bit. For the most part the economic potential of smartphones is limited to a very narrow scope: people whose job is social media, or to market their business on social media. The majority of people over-using smartphones is usually just due to muscle memory / neural pathways, and serves limited purpose if done in excess.

Think of all the other things that were once or are 'natural'. People used to smoke cigarettes, or hell even doing something as simple as drinking soda. Just because a bunch of mega-rich corporations have convinced people to do something en masse, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to do it all the time. And actually, I think you could easily build an argument that the very fact that everyone is doing it, means there is probably a smarter way to do things. The masses are rarely rational.

This isn't really that complicated of an argument. Smartphones aren't the equivalent of landlines or snail-mail.. these are apps built by companies who literally attend conferences to learn how to addict their users.

 

[fromderinside]

Seems to me the problem with ubiquitous cell phones , if there is one, is that many apps on board are designed to monetize themselves. Since this is an existing problem in society, capitalism, I see no 'problem' with the instrument of capitalism being ubiquitous cell phones. We live in societies under control of governments purportedly there to minimize harm causing by citizens. If capitalism is significantly regulated to keep down it's use of emotive tools capitalism probably wouldn't be a problem.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Seems to me the problem with ubiquitous cell phones , if there is one, is that many apps on board are designed to monetize themselves. Since this is an existing problem in society, capitalism, I see no 'problem' with the instrument of capitalism being ubiquitous cell phones. We live in societies under control of governments purportedly there to minimize harm causing by citizens. If capitalism is significantly regulated to keep down it's use of emotive tools capitalism probably wouldn't be a problem.

That's something I've never understood. When I'm thinking of buying a mobile game I read reviews. Often people are complaining about that they've used hundred of dollars on a game, or even just forty dollars. And are whining about that an upgrade changed something they've paid for. I don't understand who these people are? I've never paid for a microtransaction in my life. Because I know that it's hard to keep track of. I don't mind paying for a game once when I buy it. But after that, no way. and I make a lot of money. I have a very well paying job. Who the fuck are all these people spending money on the microtransactions? There's tonnes of games out there. Why not go for a cheaper one? Or a free one?

It's just a mystery to me.

 

[lpetrich]

Do some Google searching. Tech people in silicon valley don't give their kids phones, they give them books, and they put them in private schools where smartphones are banned. Kids need to learn to engage with the real world.

That's excessive. While I think that being a smartphone addict is a bad thing, I find dead-tree books to be a burden, and I am gradually giving away most of mine. As I go, I'm getting e-book versions of the ones I want.