
Have smartphones destroyed a generation? - eadmund
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/?utm_source=atlfb&amp;single_page=true
======
crooked-v
First it was _Generation Me_ in 2006 [1], then _The Narcissism Epidemic_ in
2010 [2], and now _iGen_ in 2017 [3]. All three books follow exactly the same
pattern: stick a vapid and insulting nickname onto the latest generation, call
that generation lonely and narcissistic, and blame it all on the latest
technological innovations while completely ignoring the broader economic and
social context. Each book directly contradicts the previous one and directly
contracts her own previous studies [4], while simply reusing the same
arguments and switching the target from generation to generation.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-
Assert...](https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-
Entitled/dp/0743276973)

[2]: [https://www.amazon.com/Narcissism-Epidemic-Living-Age-
Entitl...](https://www.amazon.com/Narcissism-Epidemic-Living-Age-
Entitlement/dp/1416575995)

[3]: [https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-
Happy...](https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-Happy-
Adulthood/dp/1501151983)

[4] [https://www.livescience.com/52771-why-teens-are-happy-
adults...](https://www.livescience.com/52771-why-teens-are-happy-adults-
miserable.html) "Very quickly, Twenge said, a pattern emerged: The eighth-,
10th- and 12th-graders of today are happier than the eighth-, 10th- and 12th-
graders of previous decades."

~~~
ryandrake
Also, the whole "article" is an obvious advertisement for the author's book,
your link #3.

------
shubhamjain
I would like to think that at some point we would be able to look at the
thousands of such claims made over hundreds of generation and admit that
"this-generation-is-doomed" is a dumb rhetoric. If end-goal is human
prosperity, how does it matter if some fad is getting popular among teenagers.
What we should be looking at is trends.

Are smartphones inhibiting innovation by being addictive? I don't think so.

Although, an argument to be made against them is that they can induce FOMO-
related stress than it was possible before. However, it seems to be double-
edged sword. Exposure to more success is a simple result of people getting
more connected. The plus-side of which is the wealth of information and
experiences we have access to today.

------
sushid
Only as much as TVs, newspapers, radios, and hell, the Greek theater have
destroyed generations.

~~~
rhcom2
Avoiding the silly title, a better question is the smartphone fundamentally
different then those other mediums? The ability for addiction seems to
indicate, to me at least, that the smartphone might be different.

~~~
ekianjo
> The ability for addiction seems to indicate, to me at least, that the
> smartphone might be different.

Why is it different? Don't you remember folks sitting in front of TVs the
whole day or night about 20 years back?

~~~
mping
And back in the day TV was mostly passive. smartphone lets you choose what and
when you want to do things.

If one looks at mental illness evolution, one might guess how different
generations are across time; not necessarily caused by smartphones but surely
and indicator of a generation's mental health.

~~~
ekianjo
> smartphone lets you choose

That's not really the case when apps are designed to make you come back to
them the whole time like Facebook and Twitter.

------
xkr
No, they haven't.

------
vorotato
Uh I'm sitting right here.

------
danboarder
Its a safe bet to say No... Betteridge's law of headlines is one name for an
adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered
by the word no." * from
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

~~~
majewsky
And you just invoked tome's law:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9077549](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9077549)

