
The growing body of evidence that digital distraction is damaging our minds - mmayberry
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/your-smartphone-is-making-you-stupid/article37511900/
======
nakedrobot2
I am terrified about giving smartphones to my kids.

France's new rule (no smartphones in schools - no exceptions) is genius, and I
applaud them for that.

What is a supercomputer in your pocket, with access to a significant portion
of the sum total of human knowledge, good for, for most people?

Playing fucking candy crush.

We wish that we, humans, were better, but we are not.

So what can we do about it? I have no idea. The economic model already exists
for games and facebook, and so on. And people have since the beginning of time
been amused by trivial entertainment.

I guess the fact of the matter, or one way of looking at it is, there will
always be people who choose trivial entertainment, and there will always be
folks who chase knowledge and self improvement. And now, like always, we can
do both of those things. But at least now, we can quantify ourselves better,
and know more about the benefits and risks. And in that way, maybe more of us
will choose to improve ourselves with these amazing tools.

~~~
DamnInteresting
> I am terrified about giving smartphones to my kids.

Hey smartphone makers, if you're listening: Let me set an alternate PIN that
unlocks the phone in a limited access mode, or "kid mode." Only pre-approved
apps are available. Only pre-approved contacts can be called/texted. In-game
purchases require the more secure PIN. Maybe when the phone is in this mode I
can track its location easily, and make it emit a noise. The maximum volume is
much lower than normal. A lockout timer auto-locks the phone after X minutes.
If the battery dips below 20%, only the voice calling, texting, and tracking
will work. Bandwidth caps. Et cetera.

This would also be nice if I ever have to lend my device to a stranger.
Smartphone OS makers should be embarrassed that this feature doesn't already
exist.

~~~
jakobegger
I‘m pretty sure Apple won‘t do that, because they want you to buy your kids
their own iPhone.

Why doesn‘t the iPad have this sort of multi-user mode? An iPad is the perfect
device for sharing. But no, if you don‘t want your kids to read your emails,
you need to buy them their own iPad.

~~~
bonestamp2
> if you don‘t want your kids to read your emails, you need to buy them their
> own iPad.

You're right. But I still think I would buy my kid their own iPad even if my
iPhone/iPad had a kid mode. My kid has their own iPad and I still find times
when it would be ideal to give them access to the basic features on my
phone/ipad. Frankly, if iOS just added the ability to password protect any app
then that would be good enough, and it would be useful for more than kids...
hand you phone to a coworker or relative to look at photos they can't
accidentally/intentionally hop over to your email.

~~~
nitemice
Your last use-case is sort of covered by Android's screen pinning feature[0].
You have to enable it in settings, but it's useful, and seems to work well.

[0]
[https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/6118421?hl=en](https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/6118421?hl=en)
This link is for Nexus, but I think it's included in all version of Android
since 5.0 Lollipop.

~~~
Nition
iOS has this too, it's called Guided Access.

------
powrtoch
An article about a "growing body of evidence" that fails to link to a single
study. Great.

"Smartphone use takes about the same cognitive toll as losing a full night's
sleep"

Would love to see this study, since it sounds completely implausible (but
really important if true). Without looking at the research, the only
reasonable course of action is to assume it's false.

~~~
MichaelDickens
"Smartphone use takes about the same cognitive toll as losing a full night's
sleep"

What does this even mean? Does it mean your cognitive performance after using
a smartphone daily is reduced to the level it would be at if you hadn't slept
at all the previous night? Does it mean cumulative smartphone use is as
harmful as cumulatively skipping a full night's sleep? (Which is clearly
false, but to me sounds like the most natural interpretation of the author's
statement.) Is it about your cognitive performance right after getting off
your phone, or does it still apply if you last used your phone several hours
ago?

But given the lack of citation, I will follow you in assuming that it's false.

~~~
barbs
That quote frustrated me too. "Smartphone use" is such a vague term here.

They seem to reference this again later in the article, but it doesn't seem to
clear things up much.

"All that distraction adds up to a loss of raw brain power. Workers at a
British company who multitasked on electronic media – a decent proxy for
frequent smartphone use – were found in a 2014 study to lose about the same
quantity of IQ as people who had smoked cannabis or lost a night's sleep."

~~~
djsumdog
That's some serious spin. What the fuck is "multitasked on electronic media"?
Where they employed at a firm where they switched from data entry to looking
up stuff? I worked at a firm where people did that and yea it would look like
their brain power reduced, because it was a terrible shit job (debt
collection). They'd have to go from data entry, to calls to skip tracking
lookups.

Depending on the type of work, that's not at all "a decent proxy." That's the
kind of bullshit you read in meta-analysis papers. (Tip: if the introduction
says its a meta-analysis, chuck that paper in the bin .. and set the bin on
fire. Most meta-analysis papers are just lazy. You cannot control in vastly
different experiments).

I agree a lot of this is FUD. Media has always been used to manipulate people.
Emotional manipulation grew massively during the Edward Bernays era (the
father of smoking advertisements and creating political and/or emotional draw
to products). It may have changed form from Print to Radio to TV to phones,
but it's still just more of the same manipulation.

------
munchbunny
I'm sure that there is truth to our minds having problems dealing with the
constant barrage of digital pings, but I also hate when the Microsoft/Canada
study gets cited.

There are serious methodological problems with that study that lead to the
convenient conclusion that humans on average have a shorter attention span
than a goldfish. It's a sexy conclusion, but if you think about it for a
moment there are so many implied assumptions in that claim. Chief among them
is the issue that attention span tends to be heavily task dependent, so what
does the average actually mean?

Here's a link to a BBC article that specifically discusses the attention span
statistic:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790)

------
leggomylibro
This sort of thing worries me for a bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is
that it seems like most kinds of successful endeavors require three things:

1\. Persistence

2\. The means to set aside time for that persistence.

3\. Luck

Number 2 is what most people tend to lack. Especially in our current climate,
most people are mentally, physically, and financially exhausted by the
ostensibly simple act of getting through a day and making sure that their
existence is stable for the next month or so.

But let's say that we get to a point where your average person can have 1-3
hours every day to comfortably spend on their dreams. How much of that time
would be spent right now on social media or idly flipping through some other
form of cheap but nicely-diced and easy-to-digest content?

Probably most of it. But isn't that exactly what people already said about
television and video games and stuff? Isn't it possible that that 'wasted'
downtime is actually important to peoples' mental health? Maybe, but
personally I think that social media has the comparative drawback that instead
of relaxing you like other forms of entertainment, it probably makes you more
stressed out. The article sure thinks that 'it's different this time.' And
that makes for a vicious cycle of uselessness.

But at the same time, I also think that smart devices can be extremely useful
- speaking of attention, how great is it to not have to remember things like
'what is the density of steel' or 'what sort of communication protocol does
this chip use' while still being able to access that information in under a
few seconds? That should be something that anyone can access cheaply and
without artificial barriers.

So I guess attention is probably just going to be another commodity with
staggering inequality of access. When you think about it, that's really fucked
up; a person's mind and body should be the alpha and omega of their
unalienable possessions, don't we hold _anything_ sacred? How long until we're
paying to turn off Harrison-Bergeron-style rigs?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I think the difference between computer-based distractions (video games,
smartphones) and those previous (television, newspapers, etc) is that the
former is interactive, which leads one to feel as if they are doing something.
Getting to the next level in a game or posting a comment or status that gets
lots of likes and replies feels like work and reward, whereas one-way
consumption doesn’t offer the same subconscious justification.

If I spend all day watching Netflix I feel like I’ve done nothing but
vegetate, but if I play video games I’ve made _progress_. If I’m constantly
scrolling through Facebook _I’m keeping up with my friends._ If I zigzag half
a dozen news sites (I would never pay for or read enough to justify half a
dozen newspaper subscriptions) _I am being informed about the world._

In each of these cases I know that 90+% of what I experience is mostly garbage
with no meaningful long term benefits to my life, but they’re so much more
_engaging_ than previous forms of distraction and so they are much harder to
put down.

~~~
ryandrake
Engagement is a trap, it fools us into thinking we're doing something. Instead
of evaluating what I'm doing in terms of vegetating vs. engagement, I find it
helps to classify my activity into consuming vs. producing. Am I actually
making or creating something, or am I passively consuming?

\- Netflix: Consumption \- Video Game: Consumption \- Facebook: Consumption \-
Web Browsing: Consumption

 _(I give up, how do you make a list in HN-text?)_

There are holes in this classification. I'd say posting to Facebook/HN/blogs
is probably garbage activity too, but it's not entirely consumption. But
thinking this way is better than making ourselves think we're accomplishing
something by beating the next boss in the game.

~~~
aoeusnth1
(You can make a list with an extra new line between each bullet)

------
bello
To provide a slightly different perspective: I recently came across a great
blogpost/newsletter: [http://mailchi.mp/ribbonfarm/how-to-ride-your-brain-
bicycle](http://mailchi.mp/ribbonfarm/how-to-ride-your-brain-bicycle)

It argues that the main reason we don't achieve our goals is not external
factors, or the lack of an effective productivity system; it's a _commitment
failure_. We have subconscious second thoughts whether our goals are actually
important to us, we lack _a sense of purpose_.

" _There is no point being focused, with a finely tuned productivity system,
and maniacal discipline against distractions, if you 're not sure what you're
doing is worth doing_"

So sure, our attention span is decreasing and we're becoming more easily
distracted, but is that all there is to blame for the alleged productivity
loss?

~~~
manmal
Exactly. And once the fear of consequences of missing a deadline kicks in, we
gain a purpose - avoidance of the negative consequences. So we procrastinate
until it’s almost too late.

~~~
bello
The article even takes that a notch further: for things that really matter to
you, once you find your true calling, you wouldn't even procrastinate in the
first place. You get immersed in omnivorous curiosity around it, you get lost.
There's no social media/tv/external factors that would distract you from it.

------
WmyEE0UsWAwC2i
Recommender Systems, trained to maximize revenue, are punishing kids for being
curious.

I'm specially refering to YouTube here. Take for example the "cell biology"
subject. In a few videos ahead you'll start getting non-scientific videos, as
"recommendations".

Suffices to say that those videos speak about widely discredited life theories
but with nicer stories.

These recommendations exploit the human brain in ways that even the creators
can not comprehend.

We could, for example, use these technologies to teach children to solve
equations. Use ML to find the optimal, user specific, series of teaching
material that takes a child from zero to "can solve any equation involving
+,-,* or /". But no, "we don't have the resources". Ah! want to go from cell
biology to cute animations of pidgeons? Yes, we have de optimal path to get
you there for free on YouTube.

~~~
mythrwy
Yes, this is a big problem.

Was watching a (non-related) YouTube video the other day when a recommended
video on Sumerian tablets popped up. Being a bit of an ancient history buff I
clicked on it. Took like 5 minutes plus to determine it was a crackpot UFO
aliens created Sumerian culture video. Because it looked convincing at first.

------
Rudism
This is what stuck out to me in the article:

> Lactation consultants in Canada and the United States have begun noticing
> the prevalence of women texting and scrolling through their phones while
> they breastfeed, breaking valuable eye contact with their baby.

Normally I'm in the skeptic camp on this issue. That screens are just the new
generation's version of comic books or rock and roll rotting the minds of our
youth, and headlines like these are making a mountain out of a molehill.

But that bit about mothers making less eye contact with their babies while
breast feeding kind of made me do a double take. I could see real
psychological damage coming from stuff like that and the broader idea that
parents using devices and neglecting their kids more is the real problem (as
opposed to those other boogey-men, where it was the kids' usage that was the
problem).

~~~
djsumdog
A caring parent still interacts with their kid. I'm sure there were plenty of
women years ago who would have a stack of magazines or books to read while
breastfeeding.

I see friends with kids now and they are so interactive with them. They color
with them, play games with them, and are totally drawn by all the simple
little things their kids do. Parents also use their phones to make an insane
amount of kids photos/videos .. which is what we did in the 90s, but it was
just one parent who was obsessed with that overpriced camcorder. Now everyone
can do it.

I call BS on this. Even if mother's aren't looking at their kids while
breastfeeding, it doesn't mean they are not totally taken in by their children
in their lives. You're going to have bad mothers of course that watch TV all
day and don't do anything or even worse mothers who smoke crack all day and
yell at their kids, but I think good parents, at least the ones I've seen
around me, are still pretty selfless in giving tremendous amounts of time and
attention to their children.

Sometimes that even means looking through apps recommendations and finding the
best educational apps and tools for them. It's not different than any other
era. The medium has just changed.

------
crispinb
The collapse of the early high-minded era of tech is almost complete. The
world envisioned by luminaries like Kay & Papert, where _computers would be
programmed by people_ as part of a process of developing individuals'
potentials, has devolved to that of Facebook, Google and Twitter, where
_people are programmed by computers_ purely for the self-interested purposes
of tiny financial elites.

It was perhaps predictable that a society with greed as its primary organising
principle would end up deploying new tech like this. But the sheer speed and
comprehensiveness of the takeover has been breathtaking.

~~~
dualogy
Too bad if these luminaries indulged in most invigorating optimism without
more questioning of their assessment of "human nature on the whole". Not to
blame them, at least they had a bright-future-envisionment worked out among
themselves to surely help keep adding to the excitement of their efforts ---
probably beats aspirations of mansions and pina coladas in terms of output-
produced =)

------
rising-sky
"Matt Mayberry, who works at a California startup called Dopamine Labs, says
it's common knowledge in the industry that Instagram exploits this craving by
strategically withholding "likes" from certain users. If the photo-sharing app
decides you need to use the service more often, it'll show only a fraction of
the likes you've received on a given post at first, hoping you'll be
disappointed with your haul and check back again in a minute or two."

If that's true, that's pretty genius and downright scary!

~~~
cube00
Another example of services hiding things that comes to mind is how YouTube
and Google Play filter comments so when you're logged in you see your
comments, making you think they've been accepted and visible, however if you
log out, your comments are no longer visible.

------
meesterdude
It's ok to use your phone. It's not OK when your phone use disrupts your
relationships or consumes more time than you'd really want.

What helped me, is backing away from services. Uninstall apps from your phone
and use a web browser to visit them. You don't have to stop using them if you
don't want to, just make them harder to get to and less noisy.

My phone is mostly for texts and phone calls now, and I don't do much else
with it.

~~~
bhhaskin
Right, a phone is a tool like any other. It's all about how you use it.

~~~
Stranger43
But the mere availability of a radical new information technology tool might
cause severe changes to social norms and political structures.

In a lot of ways thats why almost every new media gets attached to a bunch of
fears that that later generations laugh about.

------
SubuSS
I like how so many comments here are looking down on candy crush (or fb or
whatever) but are totally ok with 'self improvement' / 'learning' etc.

IMO - The latter is also mental clutter: There is a limit to # of information
that will be useful - it is best to collect information relevant to your
current pursuits now and leave the rest of the world for later (to an extent:
you probably want to keep tabs on the overall sitch though). Bingeing on HN or
other useful sites all day instead of focussing on your current goals is
almost the same - a different dopamine hit, that's all.

------
rflrob
I'm always a little skeptical of arguments that new technologies are actually
_damaging_. I'm willing to accept that people are sometimes unhappy adjusting
to new things (and that people are unhappy with how other people use their new
technology), but people have been saying that [new technology here] is bad for
thousands of years—Plato even complained about writing because it's "bad for
memory"[1]. If you frame the questions such that the metrics you choose to
measure it are going to come up poorly, then yes, new technology looks bad.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/259062-if-men-learn-this-
it...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/259062-if-men-learn-this-it-will-
implant-forgetfulness-in-their)

~~~
ictoan
If you read the article, it did mention Socrates warned about writing. Maybe
Plato did say it as well.

Anyways, your point was brought up in the article.

Did you read the article?

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you read the article, it did mention Socrates warned about writing. Maybe
> Plato did say it as well.

All the saying attributed to Socrates are by way of Plato's writing in which
Socrates is used as a mouthpiece, and are more properly attributed to Plato.
So, the references are probably to the same thing.

~~~
igravious
This is absolutely strictly correct but I think (in the Phaedrus) it's
accepted that the injunction against writing thing is Socrates' idea (because
Plato's work survives to this day in written form – Plato wrote stuff down)
but that the injunction against art/theatre/drama (is it?) is all Plato's and
is to be found in the Republic, the reason being that that which is
representational is twice removed from the truth or something like that.

But you probably already know all this. So for the benefit of others.

~~~
dragonwriter
Well, yeah, it's pretty hard to take seriously the idea that Plato adhered to
an injunction against writing (given how we have access to his written works),
but quite plausible that Socrates did (since we have access to him only
through Plato's written works.)

------
agumonkey
It's probably a vast problem to analyse, but I can sense tangible negative
side effects. Even though I don't use it that often, it does tickle a part of
my brain that distort the sense of time and creativity. You become a passive
consumer of idea and social validation, both of which (at least in my case)
are shallow incarnation of the real ones (creating and having meaningful
social bonds)

it's surprising that something "liberating" ends up backfiring that way, not
that surprising but still a bit considering how hyped up it was not long ago.

------
reggieband
I haven't read the article (I'm part of the problem!) but headlines like these
strike me as hyperbole. I recall some hubbub about excessive reading damaging
kids minds. I heard some other stories about luddites lamenting the increased
usage of pens for note-taking, claiming it hurt memory.

I also recall reading that we have changed because of reading and note taking.
Yet here we are.

So while it may be fair to say "changing" it is harder for me to accept
"damaging". Our species adapts to new circumstances and if the new
circumstance is a distracting world then calling adaptation "damaging" seems
unhelpful.

------
unabst
I was thinking about this the other day.

There is nothing "smartphone" about games. A board game, a video game, or even
sports is a game that is fun and engaging that anyone can do together, as is
any smartphone game.

There is nothing "smartphone" about the news or social media or email. These
have all been here, and just moving them to our pockets alone can't be that
damaging.

And there is nothing "smartphone" about ads or paid content or even facebook
likes.

What's "smartphone" is the immediacy and the frequency of the connectivity.
It's the bond that is stronger -- and hence the more of us more strongly bound
to our phones.

But this alone can't be damaging. It's just amazing. What is damaging are the
businesses, and people mind you, that abuse this bond. Ourselves included.

So what we really have is a new tool that just gives us more of what we want
faster.

Of course this is game changing. Of course this is dangerous. But whether we
let this damage us is still a choice. And at the end of the day, a lot of it
is just people abusing and damaging people. It's clear we can't help
ourselves. But we can also help ourselves, which is what most of these
articles appear to be about.

The point being, demonizing smartphones is just shifting blame. Getting rid of
them is getting rid of the problem, not finding a solution. With the
overarching point being, they themselves are not that dangerous.

They can't be.

Or maybe I'm still missing something...

------
StanislavPetrov
Despite being a techie, I never got a smartphone, never made a facebook
account (or any other social media account). The downsides seemed just as
abundant and clear to me all those years ago as they do today (despite the
benefits). There is plenty of time to be "connected" while I sit in front of
my computer - which is already the majority of my day. I relish having time to
myself, with my thoughts, without being barraged by all sorts of (mostly
useless) information. It just doesn't seem appealing at all to be constantly
in contact with everyone, all the time. Read a book, write a letter, sit down
with a newspaper.

------
intrasight
I see kids (my own and others) using computers in two different ways. Some
spend the majority of their time as "consumers". Some spend the majority as
"producers". Ad-driven monetization favors consumption, and we see many more
hit social apps that are great for consuming but terrible at producing. But
there is a whole genre of producer apps out there. My daughter, when she was
young, spent hour with Scratch. Scratch is amazing! In high school she spend
hours with Sketchup. Even the sim games are good in that you must think ahead
and problem solve. There are far too few programs like that. Smartphones are
inherently week for content creation. Tablets are better. Desktops are still
best. You need space to draw or paint or program.

My personal hope is that 5" screens are a passing fad. We've only had them for
a few years, and I am hopeful that we'll only have them for a few more. Then
we switch to AR. And again we'll have big screens, and developers will
hopefully be inspired to create programs that support creation and exploration
and discovery.

So don't blame "digital". Blame the narrow interface channel and the easy
money of ad-driven social media. I am of the opinion that those types of apps
will not hold the attention of users once we have high-fidelity interfaces. We
will be able to blame developers (ourselves) if the programs we create and use
aren't up to the potential. How about a virtual wood-working shop? How about
space-filling virtual instruments? How about apps to crowd-solve some tough
societal problems?

My smartphone is much more engaging than was the TV I grew up with (three
channels and bad commercials). I think there will be great creator-geared apps
in the future, and great user-created content. We do have to make sure that
creators of virtual art and goods can profit from their work. Do that, and
people will be eager to fill the vacuum of cyberspace.

------
zitterbewegung
I think this thesis is correct but it ignores the good things you can do.

I don’t think it is true for everyone .

I like texting people or using a messaging service . Yesterday I hanged out
with my friend to code I wouldn’t have done that if I didn’t have a cell
phone.

Today I used my phone to aid in my work activities .

Frequently I use my cell phone to write down notes about ideas during the day
and learn new things (ML and program synthesis).

But, I know that I have bad habits that the author says in the text. I think
you should take a balanced approach . Moderation is always a good idea .

~~~
fetus8
I think the point is that for most people, they don't know how to moderate
their phone usage, and those same people probably have issues with moderation
in general.

But on the other hand, regardless of moderation, social networking has changed
the way people interact in loads of different ways, and that change is
seemingly isolating people and causing damage too.

~~~
zitterbewegung
We can't make people drink alcohol in moderation either ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
reubenswartz
I've been thinking a lot lately about this Herbert Simon Quote:

"In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of
something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What
information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its
recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a
need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of
information sources that might consume it."

Btw, this was from 1971. ;-)

------
peatmoss
I've been wondering about the new cellular Apple Watch. In particular, I
wonder if I could get away with just having that, and use it to train myself
out of idly reading the news during periods of micro-boredom.

The main thing keeping me from trying it as an experiment, is that I use my
phone primarily for mobility (transit schedules, Car2go, ReachNow, lyft,
bikeshare, etc.). And it appears that the majority of the services I use don't
have watch apps.

~~~
jf
I bought a Series 3 Apple Watch with LTE for this exact reason. I'm on day 5
of going phone-less and while it isn't a seamless transition, I expect to go
without a phone for the foreseeable future.

What works without a phone: \- SMS/iMessages \- Phone calls via AirPods \-
Checking weather reports \- Turn-by-turn navigation \- Setting timers \-
Getting my focus back

What I wish worked without a phone: \- Updating contacts

Other:

I've been having an issue with my Outlook calendar not updating on the watch,
though I'm not sure what the root cause of that issue might be. I'm going to
try connecting my iPhone directly to Exchange.

I have the Lyft app on my watch, and it is supposed to work without the phone
nearby. I haven't had a chance to test it yet though.

When I find myself missing an app, I remember how liberating it was when I
spent 3 months living in Rwanda without the need to carry a wallet, keys, or
phone.

~~~
noirbot
Can you do this without having a phone at all? Or does it have to have an
iPhone "base station" to check in with at home?

~~~
peatmoss
AFAIK, you still need the iPhone, but it can remain plugged in at home.

~~~
jf
Yeah. You need the iPhone. It's primarily used to configure the watch, I also
suspect that the iPhone proxies some of the requests to the phone, though I'm
not sure.

I just leave mine plugged in at home.

~~~
peatmoss
Can I message you in a month to see how your experiment is going? If you've
ever had a desire to blog, I'd love to see a Medium post or similar.

------
LesZedCB
I just got back from a trip to joshua tree for a week where none of us had
phone service. Our only means of communication was when we met up or posted
notes on physical community boards.

Pretty much every single one of us commented on how that made the trip so much
better. I personally felt so relieved by the disconnect and wished I could
stay that way. Just a small anecdote.

------
ajcm
The problem isn't smartphones, it's culture. We've just not adapted to this
new reality yet.

The same was true during every major human revolution. We no longer have the
attention span of our ancestors, but that's because it doesn't make sense to
have so much of it. Nature goes for the lowest energy state, so if you
introduce something that takes over for you then your brain is going to put
that previous work to some other use.

There is no better or worse when it comes to this stuff, it's all just
conditions of our present situation.

Is reduced attention span bad? Only if the world loses all the progress it's
made. Which is a possibility, but a reduced attention span is the least of our
worries if society collapses.

This is just fear mongering as usual. Humans are defined by our incredible
ability to adapt. We're going to just keep on doing that, like the previous
100,000 years.

------
snakeboy
> In the first five years of the smartphone era, the proportion of Americans
> who said internet use interfered with their family time nearly tripled, from
> 11 per cent to 28 per cent.

It is a pet peeve of mine when these kinds of casual exaggerations enter into
a statistic. An increase by a factor of ~2.55 is quite far from a factor of 3.

I could argue the global population has nearly tripled since 1959 [1]. This is
a rounding of similar proportions, which would lead you to believe there are 9
billion people on Earth rather than 7.6 billion.

That sleight of hand incurrs an error of 1.4 billion people.

[1] [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/world-population-to-hit-
mi...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/world-population-to-hit-milestone-
with-birth-of-7-billionth-person)

------
ppbutt
Just a personal anecdote here: I live with my brother and most days, from the
time he comes home from work to the time he goes to bed is mostly spent glued
to his phone. Hard or impossible to talk to him while he's on it. He's mostly
on Instagram and silly games - sometimes Bumble or whatever. Nice guy but gets
flustered and/or puts me on hold (indefinitely) when I try to talk to him.
He's a couple years older than me - in his late 20's.

I've tried talking to him about it, saying I can hardly talk to him (if ever)
and he completely defends his position, saying he uses phone to keep in touch
with friends, notifications admitedly feel good, etc.

Any suggestions?

------
S7012MY
I don't have enough attention span to read the whole article

~~~
bhhaskin
I am not sure if it is attention span or just the quality of the information.

------
ambivalents
Does anyone have ideas as to how one could get involved in combatting these
effects? I mean as a cause to fight for, where one could make an impact on
others' (particularly the younger gen) lives.

I'm aware of the organization Time Well Spent led by Tristan Harris, and have
signed up to volunteer (but have not heard back). In the meantime, what can I
do as an individual? This is something I've grown to really care about, but am
not sure what to do on an individual level besides my own damage-mitigation
tactics (deleting FB, etc.)

~~~
en-us
You could check out secure-scuttlebutt (scuttlebutt.nz).

It's an open source and decentralized social media platform. I hope that the
decentralization will remove the advertising profit incentive and then we can
actually design apps to improve people's lives instead of maximizing screen
time.

But who knows. Maybe this is human nature and we're fucked regardless of the
underlying technology.

Either way, the best thing to do for the younger gen is to spend time with
them and teach them about this stuff so that they can make informed decisions
as they grow up. I don't think my generation had the luxury of making an
informed decision because it was all so new and the people in SV did not have
the moral compass required to weild this new power benevolently.

------
mark_l_watson
I find useful Tristan Harris‘s essays on how people get programmed to accept
UI defaults that keep us engaged continually.

I try to use social media for just two things: 1) follow a few tech people who
post interesting/useful links 2) promote my books or links to new blog
articles I write

To engage friends and family I prefer phone calls or one to one email
exchanges.

I have been using computers since the mid 1960s and the effect on society of
small digital devices has been amazing to watch (and live through).

------
jamest
My framing for this: We are the sum total of our thoughts. Letting
someone/something else direct them isn't how I wanted to live.

I recently purchased a light phone[1], which has been helpful in
disconnecting. I have the option to leave my smartphone at home and I'm still
reachable via a regular phone call.

[1] [https://www.thelightphone.com/](https://www.thelightphone.com/)

note: I'm in no way affiliated w/Light Phone

------
acd
I think that the touch interface of smart Phones causes a dopamine reward in
the brain. So when you get a push message or likes the touching of the screen
reinforces dopamine.

Observering smart phone zombies, people walking around addicted to their smart
phones not aware of their local immediate surroundings.

Social media is cashing in on the most valuable assets you have friends and
family selling gained information as advertising. Thus we are addicted to
selling information about ourselves. We are addicted to the dopamine reward of
getting likes on social media.

New Years resolution try and use cell phones less as they are addictive. So
far going so so.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and other industry insiders probably known about the
addiction. That is why their children are not given cell phones.

Cell phone interruptions probably are a cause of shorter attention spans.
Short attention span are not good when solving mental problems. People are
taking ADHD attention like Ritalin,Adderol deficit order medicines to cope
with short attention caused by smart phones.

Instead of being with local friends and family we are on our cellphones.
Instead of watching movies together we watch personal streams on Netflix.

Cell phones are addictive.

------
kashyapc
Funny happenstance that I had to see this thread just as I come back from my
Dutch language class. Tonight I had to debate (of course in Dutch) for 15
minutes, as part of an interim exam, with my co-debater about "Are smartphones
making us dumber?"

Where we quoted studies and statistics in turns—"Brain Drain: The Mere
Presence of One's Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity"; in
2017, people spent over 4 hours a day (86 hours a month) staring at their
phones, and so on.

I ended it with my favourite tip (that I've been exercising for 2 years): Put
_every goddamned thing_ and _everyone_ on mute (i.e. no notifications), except
your partner / "person you like the most" / SO.

The restored peace has been clarifying.

Edit: I barely use any applications, besides tools like train schedule look-
up, English-to-Dutch dictionary, Maps and occasionally camera. And no "social
media", besides the reasonable exception of limited HN minutes. (My phone—a
four-year-old Nexus 5, which just underwent a battery replacement surgery by
yours truly, saving a handsome 45€, and good to go for three more years with
LineageOS.)

------
xlii
While I understand the concerns (and fact that we need to protect to some
degree minds of the youth) I do think it's a bit scare mongering.

Being unhumble, I think that us - rather intelligent crowd - can't really
relate to people who are going to waste their time doing low-effort activities
and find it way too terrifying that they do this. The only thing that shifts
is what people spend their time on. Now it's smartphone, decade ago it was
computers, another decade it was television and prior to that reading low-
value romance/detective/horror fiction.

That's just how it is and it's always going to be low-value and maybe even
damaging activities, but there is nothing we can do about it. The only thing
we can do is measure it better, because smartphone is much better in gathering
the data, than - for example - books are ;)

On the other hand I have 45 minutes of my phone screentime in last 24h so it
might be, that I'm not seeing the issue, because I can't see the problem
firsthand.

------
kicarus
I would be interested to see research that compares TV in past eras with smart
phones of today. I wonder if research showed the same types of trends with TV
during the mid century when it became so ubiquitous.

I'm not saying smartphones are not damaging, but I think humans have always
looked for ways to cut lose and that often means in ways that are unhealthy.

------
creator_lol
lol I read some of these comments and all I hear is "Protect the children!"

Introducing your kids to any technology is an excellent way to teach them
responsibility and how technology can be used to increase their understanding
of the world around them. But this would require you to spend time with your
kids and guide them along their journey with enough freedom to make mistakes.

I have 2 kids 5 & 10 that started using phones at 2 years old. A couple of
broken screen and a few dramatic crying fits, but I can trust both of them to
use technology with respect. Of course the 5 year is still learning and that
happens everyday. The 10 year old is amazing now at self control with usage of
his phone while interacting with others.

I say start them early to learn good habits, but also demonstrate good habits
in your household.

------
ausjke
Human race always needs time to digest/adapt to new stuff, such as
smartphones.

Unlike previous new gadgets(TV, even internet), smartphone is so powerful that
nothing in human history can match, basically, it stretches our very brain
with this little super computer in the pocket at all fronts: be it knowledge,
games, constant-on social network, it is just too much for the young.

They're as addictive as drugs to kids' brains, especially when considering
teens should be learning the world around them at their age, now they stare at
the little screen as much as they could. it makes kids dumber, more lonely,
while feel good, the way how drugs work.

The phone makers, the router makers, the cellular operators need work together
to give us a few kids mode for their online life, as soon as possible.

------
GoToRO
Smartphones, like any other technology, is neither bad or good. It just is.
It's a tool. You can use it to do good things or you can use it to do bad
things. I would tax these corporations and use the money to raise awareness
and that's about all we can do.

------
lennydizzy
Is hacker news one of the digital distractions?

~~~
Skunkleton
Probably not as you have to manually remember to check in on it, there are no
notifications for comment replies, and no real reward system for
participating.

------
SomeHacker44
Apple seriously needs to allow us to have proper parental tools.

I can get tools on Android that allow me to limit app use, website access, and
other things. The best I can do on Apple is take the phone away when the child
shouldn't use it. I literally have two Apple phones (because I'm locked into
the iMessage/Find my Friends ecosystem) - one with nothing but basic apps and
locked down with Restrictions, and one which has all the games and stuff which
he can play for a limited amount of time per day. Not fun.

Apple gives parent's vastly insufficient tools to monitor and manage their
kids use of these devices.

~~~
EADGBE
Agreed, time limits restricted to Guided Access is only a partial (and
depending on the user - faulty) solution. User accounts with restrictions and
general time limits/operating hours like Amazon Fire devices (but without the
frustrating UX) would be awesome.

------
SamPutnam
I stopped using a smartphone 2 months ago, switching to a flipphone with wi-fi
calling. When I made the switch, the employees in the mobile store acted as if
they had lost _one of their own_ and outwardly displayed the 7 stages of grief
for my old phone as I returned it for something without a touch screen...

 _1\. Shock & Denial - ...I was asked if I was 'sure about this' more than 10
times during the transfer and repeatedly dissuaded from making the
"down"grade.

2\. Pain & Guilt- ...I was told that no one had done this before, that it was
not recommended for any customer, and skeptically prodded as if in attempts to
uncover that I lacked the qualities and smartphone use cases that make one
human.

3\. Anger & Bargaining- ...As one of the employees started setting up the
phone for me, another came over, asked what model it was, and snickered loudly
before saying how sh&@$#y the outdated messaging system was on the phone. I
begrudgingly sat through spiels on several other models that didn't fit my
requirement of 'just no apps'.

4\. "Depression", Reflection, Loneliness- ...The 4 employees started talking
amongst themselves in a ring about the old days, before any of them had a
smartphone. There were noticeable pauses and head tilts throughout the
conversation. I had been here an hour at this point.

5\. The Upward Turn- ...They handed me the phone and one even said he envied
me and wished me good luck.

6\. Reconstruction & Working Through- ...I signed the contract and they showed
me how to do wi-fi calling, cellular, and send messages, the only features I
had wanted in the first place.

7\. Acceptance & Hope- ...The employee who originally helped me said I "just
had" to email him back to tell him what it was like on the "outside"._

It was the most surreal experience, a basic exchange of products and services
that from the perspective of everyone around me was akin to renouncing my
citizenship.

~~~
d23
I would really like to do that, but honestly, I don't think I could get by
without google maps and either uber or lyft. Looking through my smart phone,
those are seriously the only applications I _need_. The other 60+ apps I could
do without.

~~~
nxc18
Why don’t you prove it and _delete the 60 unnecessary apps_.

Goodness knows every single one is tracking you in some way or another or
waiting to trick you with some dark pattern.

This isn’t meant to be sassy or to criticize you. I have similarly trimmed
back all of the apps I don’t regularly use or rely on.

~~~
EADGBE
No. Throw the baby out with the bathwater; they said.

I've deleted and re-installed Facebook countless times. It doesn't make me any
holier, but having the choice of it there and choosing to go without seems
like a stronger fight.

~~~
ckosidows
I've told this to a lot of people around me... unfollow everyone on Facebook.

This does two things: 1\. No more facebook feed 2\. No more facebook ads

You still get to keep messenger as an extended contact book, people can still
tag you in stupid things and pictures, you don't have to have that awkward
conversation telling people you're no longer on facebook. I guarantee you'll
never feel like you miss your feed. Nobody even has to know you've unfollowed
them.

I've quit facebook twice and they didn't last. But I've had no feed for months
now and I don't see myself going back.

~~~
rdruxn
Why not just get a browser extension to hide your newsfeed? Seems like a much
simpler solution than unfollowing your entire friend list.

~~~
ckosidows
Because that doesn't work on chrome for mobile, as far as I know.

------
vuyani
I recommend everyone to read the book Deep Work by Cal Newport

------
xster
I wish we can use the same technology to turn all distractions into opt-ins
instead of opt-outs.

i.e. once a month, you get a Gmail or iPhone admin notice that says: "This
month, these 4 new apps you installed and there 3 new domains started trying
to send you app notifications and mailing list emails. Here are the categories
of notifications and a few samples. Do you allow them to continue
communicating with you?"

------
digitalsanctum
I was ready to go back to a flip phone because I was aware of how many times a
day I checked my phone because of FOMO or whatever. Then I found out I could
get my phone subsidized by my employer and that was enough to keep me using a
smart phone.

Now I feel only slightly better that I'm not paying for my bad habit and still
guilty about the addiiction and associated "damage to my mind".

------
User23
Excuse me while I enjoy a nice hit of dopamine for writing this witty
response. mMMMM dopamine. What was that about damaging my mind now?

------
joubert
Two Major Apple Shareholders Push for Study of iPhone Addiction in Children:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/jana-
calp...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/jana-calpers-push-
apple-to-study-iphone-addiction-in-children)

------
notadoc
I am convinced there would be a decent market for a dumb phone with an iPhone
quality camera, and the only 'smart' functionality it should have is getting
pictures off the camera easily.

I know several families who have transitioned to all dumbphones, and the only
thing they report missing after a while is a having a decent camera on hand.

~~~
dredmorbius
Another alternative is a camera with some sort of networking / offloading
capability.

In the pre-smartphone era I picked up a pocketable digital camera, and it
remains the device on which I've shot my best images. Having a camera with
you, and a small tripod (I've several that fit into a jacket pocket or bag)
makes for excellent results. Losing the distractions of the phone is a plus.

------
Shinchy
It's a fascinating subject and I'm not sure of others but I certainly have
found that my brain has changed with the advent of Smartphone usage. I truly
wonder if a child's brain could be reversed from effect that will be set in by
a constant on, constant feedback and lack of need for knowledge retention.

------
andrewgleave
A mode which progressively throttles performance until it becomes unusable
with controls to vary the throttle rate and the expiry time would be useful.

Parents could give their kids the device which (deepening on settings or
detection of compulsive use) would actively restrict their screen time.

------
baxtr
I wish we’d stopped discussing the effects and started discussing potential
mitigation measures

~~~
castis
As a community, I'm sure we eventually will. If you want to have a discussion,
start one.

------
dboreham
Hmm. When I was a kid we were all boiling our brains by watching too much tv.
Meanwhile I learned a great deal about the world and got my lust for
scientific knowledge by watching tv. Mind you, channels with commercials were
strictly banned in our house.

------
appleflaxen
isn't a cell phone just the most recent folk devil? [1]

It used to be rock and roll.

Before that it was dungeons and dragons.

Trace it back far enough, and you get to the moral panic when people started
reading _books_.

the fear of new technologies is a cyclical phenomenon. maybe one day the fear
will be well-placed, but the historical record suggests that contemporary
individuals can't tell the difference.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil)

------
Stranger43
Or in the words of the ancient philosopher plato upon learning about the
written textbook

"""If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will
cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling
things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of
external marks."""

And just as Plato had a point but missed a greater one something similar might
be said about the campaign against the a decentralized authority free media
landscape that seams to be replacing it.

Were kind of seeing a kind of trend where every new media invention goes
though a cycle of hype and fear towards a new normal and usually a new
political and cultural structure. And i suspect that a lot of the "fear" is at
least partially a part of that process.

Not to be said that smartphones are different from for instance newspapers in
having serious and dangerous problems* but it's equally dangerous to respond
to new by trying to preserve an equally broken old model for
information/entertainment distribution.

*Remember the Maine?

~~~
cokeandsympathy
> Were kind of seeing a kind of trend where every new media invention goes
> though a cycle of hype and fear towards a new normal and usually a new
> political and cultural structure. And i suspect that a lot of the "fear" is
> at least partially a part of that process.

That doesn't make this fear unjustified. The radio made Nazism more powerful.
Trump doesn't become president without the current 24-hours news culture. ISIS
doesn't gain nearly as much influence without social media.

Also, where exactly are you getting "decentralized authority free media
landscape" from?

~~~
jdtang13
Exactly. Technology makes the highs higher and the lows lower. It's just an
amplifier for human nature.

------
n2dasun
I plan on abandoning my smartphone next month. Not certain enough to say that
I’m abandoning smartphones for good, but I sort of feel that way. I’m over it.

------
msaad99
Who here has more information about this "Instagram strategically withholding
likes to exploit craving"? This seems like a serious issue.

~~~
Method-X
I think I read about it in Hooked by Nir Eyal.

------
uhhhhhhh
Why are we pretending this is unique or new to smartphones.

Television has worked this way for a long time, all media and advertising has
worked on the same principals.

Instead of pretending this is "new and scary", we should be focusing on
understanding the impacts and limits, and how much is too much, rather than
this grey and white false narrative that smartphones are somehow solely
responsible for the increasingly intrusive advertisements and attention
grabbing reality we've been constructing for decades longer than smartphones
have been around.

~~~
naiyt
They addressed this argument in the article, and why smartphones are
inherently different than TV (or any number of other distractions that people
have worried about in the past).

~~~
uhhhhhhh
They addressed it by waving their hands and insisting its different, that
doesn't equate to a valid argument. That also doesn't change that the methods
and impacts are all the same, the only difference is scale, which is my point.

If you want to get into details, the article addresses it by saying "Unlike
TVs and desktop computers, which are typically relegated to a den or home
office".

That is disingenuous and naive at best, outright misleading and wrong at
worse.

Laptops have been around a long time, TV's are making their way into more
rooms in the house, waiting rooms, restaurants, even many businesses are
putting tv's in lobbies and other places. Walk through any major city's
shopping district and tell me there isn't a deluge of televisions in every
direction/in every window, if you do you're either blind or being dishonest.

And every single technique used by smartphones to capture your attention
applies to laptops, desktops, tablets, television, to pretend otherwise is to
ignore the past.

~~~
gerbilly
> They addressed it by waving their hands and insisting its different, that
> doesn't equate to a valid argument.

While they may not have formulated a valid argument, I think there is a valid
argument to be made, so I will try.

Television was a broadcast medium, the only way you could interact with it was
to switch channels.

Apps on a smartphone are more interactive (they can take user input) _and_
include a mechanism for personalized push notifications which makes them into
a much more potent tool for capturing and retaining attention, how?

They are like a skinner box with a button that gives out rewards (the rewards
are likes, or text messages, or push notifications) when you interact with the
app.

What makes apps even worse than TV is that the makers of the apps have, either
through blind experimentation (a/b testing) or by applying lessons learned
from behavioural psychology, fine tuned them to make them as addictive as
possible.

Basically, a the facebook app on your phone is like a skinner box, where you
are the pigeon, and the app gives on rewards on a variable ratio, partial
reinforcement schedule (the type of reinforcement schedule that has been found
the best at eliciting a strong rate of response the subject.)

Also what makes phones addictive is what _isn 't_ on the phone. Phones
typically don't have productivity apps, like word or a programming environment
like you might have on a laptop. They have limited uses beyond communication,
which narrows our choices when using them to those very apps that were
designed to be addictive.

[1] [https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-variable-ratio-
schedule-2...](https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-variable-ratio-
schedule-2796012)

~~~
uhhhhhhh
>While they may not have formulated a valid argument, I think there is a valid
argument to be made, so I will try.

Excellent.

Television was a broadcast medium, its increasingly becoming an on-demand
medium with streaming services. You make valid points about it being less
interactive, but by the same token, the interruption driven forced
marketing/forced viewing of content X (advertisements) in order to consume
content Y is a staple of the entire advertising industry. Targeting
advertisements based on demographics, location and other admittedly wider and
less specific metrics happens in television, even in print media. The
difference with smartphones is the metrics are more specific, as is the
ability to target individuals rather than groups.

But that difference doesn't hold up to laptops. The entire argument about
mobility, reward based gaming (see DLC and online gaming, as well as the huge
number of people that play basic games on facebook not using mobile), feedback
loops, highly specific metrics and targeted advertising exists there, as well
as on tablets, yet were sitting here trying to blame smartphones as the issue.

Personally, I have office on my phone, as well as google docs, regularly
edit/collaborate on documentation, and have even used a keyboard and mouse
with my smartphone to connect to work through vpn's and do sysadmin and
scripting work. Admittedly I'm the minority there, but a large number of
laptops and desktops are dedicated gaming/fun machines, not everyone is an
office/word/programming monkey every time they sit in front of a computer.

My argument is smart phones are NOT the issue, the internet, with its highly
specific individual metrics and targeting abilities, applying the same
marketing tactics used in print and television media as well as used in
interactive tasks, is the issue. Exposure to that through desktops, laptops,
tablets, smartphones etc... is the problem (scale). To focus on just
smartphones ignores that a significant portion of people interact with these
same highly targeted, manipulative and distracting applications through
multiple devices, I don't know anyone who uses facebook solely on their
smartphone, but I know a number of people who only use it on laptops/desktops
and refuse to use it on smartphones due to security/privacy/battery life and
other reasons.

Variable ratio scheduling and all other methods in question apply to every
device you use to access the product using those methods. Smartphones amplify
this to a degree by portability/access, but we shouldn't pretend that
smartphones themselves are the issue, or the sole source of the issue.

------
scotty79
The only thing I see is that smartphones fixed boredom. Waiting 15 minutes or
even 45 minutes in line is no longer a painful experience.

------
davidjnelson
Moment for iOS and rescue time for Mac and Windows. Fantastically helpful!!

------
ianai
Rampant caffeine consumption in high levels is not helping our focus either.

------
zpatel
what about internet? There is a ton of stuff out there on the internet that is
bad for kids, so shouldn't that be controlled too ?

------
noja
But choice is good, right?

~~~
dredmorbius
Rebuttal:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1AGdaZpMcE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1AGdaZpMcE)

------
myaso
Smartphones are much harder to lock down than a laptop. I don't know about the
iPhone but Android makes it a pain in the ass -- don't suggest stuff I've
looked very hard already, some things you could do are simply impractical.

------
ubik
Kaczynski was right

~~~
sctb
Would you mind posting civilly and substantively instead of “edgy” one-liners?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
fogzen
What growing body of evidence? The article references no studies. This article
does not meet HN's discussion guidelines and should be removed.

> "What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about
> the world."

This article teaches us nothing.

~~~
dredmorbius
I find several references as I read the article:

"In Persuasive Technology, one of the most quietly influential books to come
out of Silicon Valley in the past two decades, the Stanford psychologist B.J.
Fogg predicted that computers could and would take massive advantage of our
susceptibility to prodding. "People get tired of saying no; everyone has a
moment of weakness when it's easier to comply than to resist," he wrote.
Published in 2002, Prof. Fogg's book now seems eerily prescient."

"A recent study of Chinese middle schoolers found something similar. Among
more than 7,000 students, mobile phone ownership was found to be
"significantly associated" with levels of inattention seen in people with
attention-deficit disorder."

"Workers at a British company who multitasked on electronic media – a decent
proxy for frequent smartphone use – were found in a 2014 study to lose about
the same quantity of IQ as people who had smoked cannabis or lost a night's
sleep."

This item cites expertise rather than a specific study, but:

"These companies have persuaded us to give over so much of our lives by
exploiting a handful of human frailties. One of them is called novelty bias.
It means our brains are suckers for the new. As the McGill neuroscientist
Daniel Levitin explains, we're wired this way to survive."

"The devices exert such a magnetic pull on our minds that just the effort of
resisting the temptation to look at them seems to take a toll on our mental
performance. That's what Adrian Ward and his colleagues at the University of
Texas business school found in an experiment last year. They had three groups
of people take a test that required their full concentration. One group had
their phones face down on the table, one had them in their bags or pockets and
the last group left them in another room. None of the test-takers were allowed
to check their devices during the test. But even so, the closer at hand the
phones were, the worse the groups performed."

"Researchers at Cambridge University showed recently that eye contact
synchronizes the brainwaves of infant and parent, which helps with
communication and learning. Meeting each other's gaze, Ms. Sandink says,
amounts to "a silent language between the baby and the mom." That doesn't mean
breastfeeding mothers need to lock eyes with their children 24 hours a day.
But while Ms. Sandink emphasizes that she isn't trying to shame women, she
worries that texting moms may be missing out on vital bonding time with their
babies."

"Catherine Steiner-Adair, a clinical psychologist and research associate in
psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, interviewed 1,000 kids between the ages
of 4 and 18 for her 2013 book The Big Disconnect. Many of them said they no
longer run to the door to greet their parents because the adults are so often
on their phones when they get home."

"The Center for the Digital Future, an American think tank, found that between
2006 and 2011, the average number of hours American families spent together
per month dropped by nearly a third, from 26 to about 18."

So, no, actually, I find your characterisation entirely inaccurate.

