Follow this blog:
RSS

Scream against screens: PCs, gadgets, TVs are ruining our kids

By | October 10, 2012, 3:27 AM PDT

Intravenous information and entertainment.

Modern kids and teenagers are never here. They’re always there. Get in the same room, car, or any place with them, and they whip out a beeping, buzzing gadget - sometimes two or three of them - and vanish into another world.

Correction - they don’t whip it out. It was already out, hot and smoking from hours of previous persistent use.

If they’re not hallucinating on that 3-inch screen, they’re tapping away at the PC, zapping away at the Playstation, rotting away at the television, or “dropping a tab” of tablet computing. Typically, they ingest some combination of these at the same time!

This extreme screening can’t be good, can it?

Tweet this answer: No!

According to psychologist Dr. Aric Sigman, it’s wrecking their attention spans, triggering depression, and addicting them. Oh, you might say, there’s nothing new about a few distracted, morose teenagers. Well how about the physical effects then? The sedentary lifestyle that comes with screen addiction is linked to heart disease, strokes and diabetes, the doctor notes.

DAMAGING THE PLANET TOO

(I’ll add another killer consequence: It contributes to unhealthy global warming, with all the CO-spewing electricity plants that are driving hundreds of thousands of data centers and billions of power supplies and battery chargers that maintain the madness).

Sigman wrote his observations in the Archives of Disease in Childhood (there’s one for your coffee table) as reported by the BBC.

Screens are obliterating kids’ attention spans because they’re linked to the brain’s release of the chemical dopamine, the BBC articles states, although it’s a little bit fuzzy in explaining the exact connection Sigman makes between dopamine, screens and attention.

Sigman points out that the average ten-year-old has access to five screens at home, that British teenagers spend up to six hours a day on screens (surely some spend more), and that adverse effects set in after two hours. That’s a lot of adversity!

THE DOCTOR SAYS SO

In case you needed clinical proof, Sigman writes, “Children routinely engage in two or more forms of screen viewing at the same time.”

Let’s be clear: Not all kids are doing this (just most!), and such screen immersion won’t turn every child into a basket case.

But there seems to be plenty of evidence that we’ve let a bad genie out of the bottle - and we adults often set poor examples with our own screen addictions.

It’s a complicated issue, because the same techno-wizardry that feeds those diabolical contraptions also does the world a lot of good - we all use and appreciate the trappings of information technology and connectivity every day. That bad genie has a good twin. There’s no putting them back. But let’s command the one that’s turning children into mush to cease and desist.

Stay here then and tell me - just how are we going to do that?

Photo: Daniel Conway via Flickr.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
17
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Great article
Thanks, Mark! As a father of a 3 year-old who is quickly mastering the television, laptop, and PC this article is extremely relevant to me. I have certainly thought about some of the things that you have brought up. As an IT Consultant, I am guilty of engaging in far too much screen time myself. I admit it, I'm addicted! How do I keep my son who is watching me from becoming the same at his young age?

Some of the things that I have considered is limiting his screen time. We are trying to get it down to just an hour after he eats dinner. Since he typically watches TV while eating, and we struggle to get him to eat, it may help to use it as a reward, rather than just a device to keep him occupied.

Anyway, I am looking forward to any other suggestions, as well.

Thanks again!
Posted by garysoucy
10th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Moderation
I have teenagers, and I'm also in IT. My 15 yr old understands more than many 'IT' people.
At 3, I would suggest educational programming. I was an only child left in front of the TV, and I could read before kindergarten - but I didn't watch sports or action movies, I watched PBS and cartoons. I was also active and played outside - so this is the format that I've set for my kids. If they're playing games or watching TV 'too much', then I send them outside. Another thing that helps is having multiple children and a single device. Forcing them to share obviously helps them learn to share and learn to face disappointment and limits - but also forces them to do something else when they don't have access to that device.

And don't hover. The kid is 3 and can entertain himself. Let him go out in the backyard with some friends and climb some stuff without you there to catch him.
Posted by Havokmon
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
The voice of reason
I couldn't agree more, Havokmon. If only it worked with all kids! Fortunately, many will hew to this line, even if they do call their parents a few choice words in the process. The lesser of two evils...
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Rewarding
Thanks Gary. Your "reward" idea sounds like a good one. I wish I had more answers, but I will say this: Keep at it now. As the father of 2 teenagers (well, one's 12, and the other was born a teenager 14 years ago) I can report that their ability to access screens gets harder to control as they grow older. They pull 'em out of hats. Instill some sense of boundary now, and hopefully there will be less conjuring later in life. Good luck!
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
They said the same thing about my generation
I'm 52 years old, and I recall that they said the same thing about my generation's television watching. And when my kids were young, Nielsen told us that school-aged children were watching something on the order of (IIRC) 10 hours of television per day, despite the fact that my kids barely had 7 hours from the time they got home from school to the time they were in bed. And that's the same generation of kids that supposedly had too many extracurricular activities (baseball/soccer/gymnastics/private tutoring/etc.) and not enough unstructured time, according to other researchers.

Not that there isn't some truth both then and now, or that it hasn't been multiplied by 5 since I was a kid, but research intended to prove a point usually does so.

It is certainly annoying when people, young adults especially, are pecking at their smart phones when you're trying to have a real conversations with them, but from what I've seen, the obsession isn't permanent and they re-enter the physical world soon enough.
Posted by AlanLaRue
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
The evil novel
Yup. You're right Alan. Every generation has faced this. Over a century or two ago, people frowned upon novels in the same way, for the potential to cause withdrawal, etc. But I think you're onto something when you say that it has "multiplied by 5" today. Probably a lot more than 5. It's the pace of change and the absolute ubiquitous bombardment that we've never seen before. I'm pleased to see "studies" like Dr. Sigman's, because we have to start thinking longer and harder about what's going on. We won't stop the technology avalanche, , nor am I advocating any neo-Ludditism to do so. But let's be aware of the effects and take it from there.
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Too much of a great thing
The ability to bring nearly the whole of mankind's knowledge to students of all levels of intellect or interest brings tears of joy to my eyes. The ability of a student to "unplug" from reality and escape from all social appropriateness brings tears of sorrow to my eyes.
Posted by pheasant55
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Live by the sword, die by the sword
I second the motion, pheasant55!
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
More blame-game naming is all I see
As Alan LaRue points out above, there have always been these 'studies'. And there is always some kind of blame on one thing or another.. Pool halls, games, electronics, you-name-it. Parents blame the schools, parents blame other kids, researchers blame everything under the sun. However, most of the blame is on the parents.

YES, you can let a kid be almost babysat by electronics (tablet, phone, computer, tv, etc), however, it is the parents who simply sit-back and watch it happen, instead of giving any guidance of any worthwhile sort. By far in this country (USA), parents accept the least blame and responsibility for raising their own kids, and almost prevent the kids from accepting any as well.

For those of you who read other sites like this, there have been just as many studies and reports of how gaming and electronics can enhance a kid's future. Helping them learn multitasking at an early age, giving better hand-eye coordination, and if they play the 'right' games, assisting with problem-solving, spatial-relations and more.

Again, as stated before, there's a study and a report for everything, and if they WANT to prove something. They can, it's far too easy to bias and skew any research.

'
Have you worked in a coal mine? 'yes'
Have you had asbestos in your environment? 'yes'
Do you smoke? 'yes'
AHA!, you smoked, and you have lung cancer. All smoking leads to lung cancer
'

No, I do not smoke, but this is the kind of idiocy I've heard of happening in some 'research'.
Posted by jonrosen
Updated - 10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Different strokes for different folks
Some people can handle drugs, some can't, Jonronsen. Some people thrive under pressure, others wilt. Some hone hand-eye coordination via exposure to digital doodads at an early age, and go on to excel as hockey goalies, brain surgeons, astronauts or whatever. Others break into pieces from the same exposure. Cyber is a legal drug, doing wonders for many, but not without its side effects. We need to understand them better.
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Talk about digital pathology: You guys really can't help yourselves can you.
"It contributes to unhealthy global warming, with all the CO-spewing electricity plants that are driving hundreds of thousands of data centers and billions of power supplies and battery chargers that maintain the madness."

Another global warming screed in an article that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming? Mark, I think you're right, except it's not only children who are being warped by endless hours of exposure to digital media. You really can't help yourself, can you.

Although I do mostly agree with the primary premise of your piece, (that kids are being overly stimulated digitally - I've personally observed the effects) let me make a counter argument: Perhaps by enslaving upcoming generations to endless digital entertainment we are preventing them from indulging in real activities that might possibly be even more harmful to the environment. Every hour they spend in their dark rooms and basements in front of screens is one hour less they are driving or using other public infrastructure. (After all, the countless hours I spent on "Flight Simulator" were responsible for spewing far less CO2 than the actual hours I spent flying) And that "sedentary lifestyle that comes with screen addiction" will see to it that they don't live long enough to get on Medicare or Social Security. And imagine the CO2 implications of all those kids spending those lost hours on actual jobs instead of in front of screens.

In fact, it's long been a prediction of mine that in the future, "reality" will be almost exclusively for the wealthy. The rest of us will only be able (or allowed) to experience most activities virtually, for both cost and environmental/political purposes. (This has actually been happening for decades, really)
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Phew, JohnMcGrew!
Wow. What can I say? I really like your rapid fire on unintended consequences. Just goes to show we ARE in a brave new world, and we are only just scratching the surface of understanding it.

As for not helping myself on the CO2 rant - well, I did write that parenthetically. But there is a a lot of truth to it. Think about it - 20 years ago, none of us had cellphones, and many of us were only just getting our first PCs. Now there are billions of both around the world. Colossal energy consumption. Then again, the McGrew Law states that some of those belong to individuals who would otherwise fly airplanes! Round and round we go.

And yes indeed, I can't stay away from the digital pit hole. I'm a journalist. Someone mentioned a coal mine earlier - I have to keep chipping away at the seam of my keyboard to make ends meet.

Cheers!
Posted by markhalper
10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Of all the appliances I use on a daily basis...
...my smartphone is probably the least demanding in terms of energy consumption. I'm certain the 40-year-old flip-style clock radio that I keep on my desk here uses far more power. I recently purchased and installed a 70" LED TV for one of my charities. It will consume less power than the 30-gallon aquarium in my office.

In fact, energy consumption per-American has been on the decline for several decades now. Yes, when considered in aggregate, electronics today do consume a significant amount of energy. But no where near as much as other aspects of our national consumption used to. In environmental terms, think it's been a pretty good trade.

So let's go ahead and discuss the social aspects of this new tech - it's a very worthy topic. But throwing CO2 into the mix is not only non sequitur, it's just silly.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 10th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Clockin' the changes
I'm nostalgic for that clock radio you mention, which happens to also tie into the digital dysfunction theme in my story. A clock radio in the UK tends to be completely digital - in the broadcast signal it receives, as well as in its operation. It also happens to require technical training to figure out how to set the alarm, etc. All for the equivalent of a ridiculous $65, and that's just the base model. Give me a good old analog Dream Machine for $18, with a few manageable buttons and dials...

One more word on the non sequitur: It's not just the power that those computing devices are directly consuming. It's also the power that stores, manipulates and delivers the ocean full of data...

Now, as no one has brought up this related rant, I will: How 'bout all those nuts who wear iPod-connected earphones while jogging or cycling out on the road? I bet that's some of you! Safety tip: You can't hear the cars coming. Why not just paint a garage ramp on you t-shirt and invite a Mack Truck to roll up? There's plenty of time to play your favorite tunes elsewhere. Hear the birds and all that. I jog. I bike. I listen.

Sorry if that's also a non sequitur John, but I think you'll find it's more related than the CO2.
Posted by markhalper
Updated - 11th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Good point about the IT infrastructure...
...that makes owning a smartphone, and most of the other digital devices worthwhile. But I'll still argue that most of that infrastructure consumes less energy than alternative uses for our time might. And that infrastructure becomes more efficient per/user every day. And like I pointed out above, American per-capita energy consumption has trended steadily downward during the same time that digital usage has gone from near zero to near 100%. That would help confirm my assumption.

Also, good point on earphone sensory deprivation. When walking my neighborhood, I admit to wearing a lightweight non-ear-covering headset at relatively low volume that allows me to hear what's going on around me. But when walking in more natural, quiet environs, I forgo electronic media and enjoy the near silence and sounds of nature.

What gets me are people with earbuds so loud, that you can hear what they are listening to 20 feet away. Their choices as to what to listen to in later years will be highly limited.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 11th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Prophesies? Or not?
I am 67 and remember many warnings given children and parents through the years. I've also learned of warnings given to generations before me. In the years I have been on this earth my observation is that the prophets of doom have been both right and wrong. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion (note the use of the whole phrase) they have been mostly right. It's just taken longer than most of them predicted, but it has been a withering process nonetheless. Some examples: It was predicted in the fifties that rock 'n' roll would lead to a wholesale erosion of morals and values. For the most part it has, but not without help. When the adults and the big companies who originally opposed it realized how much money there was in this "evil music" they aided the advancement -- or deterioration, if you will -- to line their pockets. In the sixties it was predicted that TV would lead to the downfall of America through - that's right - the erosion of morals and values. It did that, but also set us up for the acceptance of all things appearing on a screen as being more real than what is around us. In the seventies "hippies" were decried for using marijuana and LSD, that it would ruin an entire generation. But it got turned around. The tune in, turn on, drop out generation ended up running the big pharmaceuticals convincing us that drugs can solve all our problems. Need it be mentioned that it has been this same generation that told us not to trust "the man" and government, and now runs it telling the rest of us that big government is good for us? Examples galore, but the point is, the deterioration of our culture has not come about through single, news-making events. It has come through the creeping compromise we've all come to accept from every direction and every angle.
Posted by justajo
Updated - 11th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Is a Screen like a hammer?
Yes it is. You can build a house or smash your thumb. We are building a house with screens, so it would be great if you could take a look at this campaign in Indiegogo, and give us a hand. We believe in screens a a tool, and we believe in children as the future. Ecolilis is about an animation series to teach toddlers some eco basics, and we need as much help as possible to reach our goal.

http://www.indiegogo.com/ecolilis

Thanks
Posted by Ecolilis
12th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!